Why more wind farms & Pylons needed

fclauson · 26-01-2014 4:55pm #1

According to EirGrid's calculations Ireland needs approximately 3,500 MW of wind energy to meet our EU renewable energy targets.

Approximately 1,800 MW of generating capacity are already in place.

Since 2010, (according to EirGrid), the regulator has approved a further 5,500 MW

New wind energy applications currently before the Commission for Energy Regulation, awaiting approval 23,000 MW.

In order to meet the targets Ireland needs 3,500 MW.

Explains why we need pylons - easy - to export all that energy

Macha · 26-01-2014 8:43pm

fclauson wrote: »

According to EirGrid's calculations Ireland needs approximately 3,500 MW of wind energy to meet our EU renewable energy targets.

Approximately 1,800 MW of generating capacity are already in place.

Since 2010, (according to EirGrid), the regulator has approved a further 5,500 MW

New wind energy applications currently before the Commission for Energy Regulation, awaiting approval 23,000 MW.

In order to meet the targets Ireland needs 3,500 MW.

Explains why we need pylons - easy - to export all that energy

Installed capacity? What about generation, given average capacity factors?

fclauson · 26-01-2014 9:00pm

Numbers taken from http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2014-01-23a.124

But see http://www.iwea.com/_windenergy_onshore
Installed is 1844

and see http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_and_Fuel_Mix_Report_November_2013.pdf

Wind is about 25% efficient installed vs actually delivered

BrenCooney · 26-01-2014 9:15pm

3500 MW may be our renewable target, but in reality we need much much more if we are to halt climate change. Yes we need to export it when we have an excess but don't forget we will be able to import it when we have a deficit. Think smart grid but onan international scale. This is the way to go but unfortunately it will probably never happen.

Macha · 26-01-2014 9:49pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

3500 MW may be our renewable target, but in reality we need much much more if we are to halt climate change. Yes we need to export it when we have an excess but don't forget we will be able to import it when we have a deficit. Think smart grid but onan international scale. This is the way to go but unfortunately it will probably never happen.

Our target is a share of energy, which would be measured in MWh. Therefore you cannot say that 3500 MW is our target.

fclauson · 26-01-2014 10:08pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

3500 MW may be our renewable target, but in reality we need much much more if we are to halt climate change. Yes we need to export it when we have an excess but don't forget we will be able to import it when we have a deficit. Think smart grid but onan international scale. This is the way to go but unfortunately it will probably never happen.

Can I suggest you read http://www.turn180.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

and

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Jaworowski_interview.pdf

Very thought provoking

So back to turbines and pylons - does industrializing the country side to the extent it has been the right answer

Macha · 27-01-2014 9:36am

Turn180.ie is a well known anti-wind turbines website. I am not going to get my information from there.

[mod]Please engage in debate here, without simply referring posters to biased websites. You're welcome to link to them and use their arguments but simply linking to them does not equal debate.[/mod]

fclauson · 27-01-2014 9:54am

Ok - but my other numbers came from http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2014-01-23a.124

BrenCooney · 27-01-2014 1:47pm

I stand corrected . It should be MWh!
Personally I think we very quickly need to move our % of renewable energy a lot higher than the low level presently being espoused by governments. Carbon dioxide appears to be impacting on our species like carbon monoxide, in that we really are not becoming aware of its danger fast enough.
While people might not like wind turbines and other large scale renewable energy sources they are possibly our only hope as nuclear fusion appears to be a long way off and the general populace do not wish to reduce their energy usage in any meaningful way.

fclauson · 27-01-2014 2:14pm

There is an alternative approach which is to spend the money on energy efficiency improvements - my previously rented house consumed 2500L of oil per year - my new one (all be it driven by a heat pump so comparison is based on kWh produced/used) consumes sub 400L plus with local PV 80% of which is used on site (thus no transmission losses) brings my house vey close to Carbon Zero for heating and Hot water and will be cash positive after about 10 years.

A scheme to move people out of the fuel poverty trap would seem to be a better investment than changing the landscape of the country so that you can create energy to sell abroad with a very questionable benefit or return to the average citizen. (if Germany increase in electrical charges are anything to go by)

And the paying of money to energy providers even when they have to "throw away" the energy because its not needed at present is madness. The investment needs to be in smart (and I mean really smart) meters to make use of this energy. e.g. to provide free energy to cash challenged households when there is excess on the network and thus again help move them out of fuel poverty would make sense. This is simple to do if we had minute by minute smart meters with variable electrical pricing to go with it.

BrenCooney · 27-01-2014 4:08pm

Like all things in life it will not be as simple as spending lots of money on insulation etc. .i is part of the solution but don't forget transport, manufacturing, etc are energy hungry and energy efficiency will quickly meet a wall beyond which it will be physically impossible to go. The internet itself needs hugh amounts of electricity needs and large scale renewable energy is part of the answer. Even Lovelock of the Gaia hypothesis suggested a few years back that we should start considering nuclear in order to reduce our carbon emissions. I believe we are sleepwalking to a disaster, while others worry about the visual and ascetics of wind turbines!

Greensleeves · 27-01-2014 6:02pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

While people might not like wind turbines and other large scale renewable energy sources they are possibly our only hope as nuclear fusion appears to be a long way off and the general populace do not wish to reduce their energy usage in any meaningful way.

So one lot of people must accept something they don't like becasue another lot of people "do not wish" to change. Hmm.

Anyway, I think it is a bit more complicated than that: the general populace need to reduce their consumption of more than energy usage if any meaningful change is to be effected.

A few wind turbines in Ireland are absolutely insignificant in the global scheme of things. In some ways they possibly add to the problem because they engender a sense of smugness that allows consumerism to continue apace. If all of the electrical/electronic stuff we use is made in the most CO2 polluting countries (China and India for example) we are simply outsourcing the problem while clapping ourselves on the back for our supposed eco friendlness.

Some sobering reading from the Guardian...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/co2-emissions-outsourced-rich-nations-rising-economies

BrenCooney · 27-01-2014 6:57pm

Very often the people who wont accept "something they dont like" are the same people who "wont change their habits". Oil, electricity, travel, consumption etc what ever you call it is all energy usage.
I do agree its no solution if we just export the problem abroad, while we continue with consumerism apace here, thus we need to get serious with rolling out renewable energy on a larger scale than to date, and the people of this island need to accept this. If renewable energy sources were continent wide, as wind/sunshine/wave energy reduces in one part it can import from those areas where they have an excess and visa versa, ie smart grid on a national/ continent/ global scale.

Greensleeves · 27-01-2014 7:12pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

Very often the people who wont accept "something they dont like" are the same people who "wont change their habits". Oil, electricity, travel, consumption etc what ever you call it is all energy usage.
I do agree its no solution if we just export the problem abroad, while we continue with consumerism apace here, thus we need to get serious with rolling out renewable energy on a larger scale than to date, and the people of this island need to accept this. If renewable energy sources were continent wide, as wind/sunshine/wave energy reduces in one part it can import from those areas where they have an excess and visa versa, ie smart grid on a national/ continent/ global scale.

And how will that reduce CO2 emissions in China and India?

Macha · 27-01-2014 8:07pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

And how will that reduce CO2 emissions in China and India?

What's that got to do with anything?

Ireland spends E6bn/year on fuel imports. We are 85% dependent on energy imports. We import 93% of our gas from one point in Scotland, a serious vulnerability that leaves us open not only to the vagaries of the British wholesale gas market but also to any exchange rate changes.

We cannot keep going like this. As demand increases in the BRIC countries, global fossil fuel market prices are going to get higher and more volatile. We're not going to build a nuclear plant, we're not going to frack the midlands, and we're not going to rip up our bogs and burn them all.

We can do all the energy efficiency we want, and there will still be a demand for energy. If we can't figure it out with the enormous wind, solar and wave potential that this island has, well, we deserve everything coming to us.

BrenCooney · 27-01-2014 8:50pm

Yes if China, India, US don't do anything we will have problems as they are the largest CO2 emitters, but that should not stop us from doing something. If we start others might follow and we as a species might just pull it off.
For all of its faults the EU and it's people are the starting to become aware that we need to stop this insane path we have gotten onto with fossil fuels.
We need to tap all of our renewable resources, sustainably yes, and not listen to the many very very vocal naysayers who often have ulterior motives, be that personal or larger.

fclauson · 27-01-2014 10:11pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

...not listen to the many very very vocal naysayers who often have ulterior motives, be that personal or larger.

That's true - but each of energy-corner-teams who support one of coal/nuclear/gas/oil/wind/PV/tide..... want a slice of the $/£/$ and the way they articulate their message is normally at the dis-service to another energy source.

What has to be done is finding the right function which joins

Renewable to
Environmentally Friendly to
Sustainable to
Socially Acceptable and
which has
- pragmatic costs and
- sensible and real return on investment.

Unfortunately no one has done this as yet

I nailed my colours to the mast by building a house to help address my cents worth of energy reduction.

BrenCooney · 27-01-2014 10:31pm

I would agree with the first three of your bullet points but the time for social acceptability and return on investment is probably way past. This planet is living on borrowed time.
I too nailed my colours to the mast three years ago with solar panels, wall insulation, window up grade to triple glaze and a complete re roof of my dormer house to give close on 350 mm of insulation as well as completely air tightening of the whole house. Not cheap and the payback is not in my lifetime but my children's. But so what, you can't always look at things in a present day economic model. Its too short.

fclauson · 27-01-2014 10:47pm

You might even get Passive Enerfit certification if you went that far ?

Greensleeves · 28-01-2014 11:54am

BrenCooney wrote: »

If we start others might follow and we as a species might just pull it off.
For all of its faults the EU and it's people are the starting to become aware that we need to stop this insane path we have gotten onto with fossil fuels.
We need to tap all of our renewable resources, sustainably yes, and not listen to the many very very vocal naysayers who often have ulterior motives, be that personal or larger.

It is daft to suggest that Ireland would be starting anything; Denmark and Germany are way ahead of us and they have ended up with the most expensive electricity in Europe. And in the case of Germany they have ended up with rising CO2 emissions because when the wind doesn't blow you need backup power and Germany has found it cheapest to use coal and lignite to provide this.

Just last week the EU rowed back on it's renewable energy push, reducing binding renewable targets and leaving it up to the individual member states to decide how best to reduce CO2.

Our pylon/wind farm expansion plans are predicated on the notion that there will be a market in the UK and France for our (expensive) electricity. Our own energy needs are predicted to rise at 1.3% per annum to 2020 so there will be no market in Ireland for the excess electricity. Essentially EirGrid are using the tax-payers money to facilitate a gamble by private wind-farm investors. If there is no market for the electricity abroad then it will be wasted because there is no cost-efficient way at the moment to store electricity. It would be a terrible waste of money and the earth's resources to roll-out infrastructure that was surplus to requirements. Ghost estates all over again.

I'm afraid I disagree with you about not listening to the many very very vocal naysayers whose ulterior motive is to prevent industrial wind farms and unnecessary pylons ruining their quality of life for questionable benefit to the environment. Everyone is entitled to their say. Wind energy became popular in Denmark and Germany because it was based on a community owned, local benefits model. Attempts in both countries to impose industrial wind farms similar to what is proposed for Ireland have met with resistance. Ireland could learn a lot from the experience of other countries if we are humble enough to accept that we are not in the vanguard of anything and that mistakes made elsewhere can provide valuable lessons for us.

BrenCooney · 28-01-2014 12:26pm

Maybe their electricity costs are begining to reflect the true cost of energy.
Fossil fuel derived energy never incorporates the cost of the elevelated CO2 in the atmosphere, or any of the other environmental costs, thats left to ordinary taxpayer superfund remediation monies!
Yes THe EU have bowed to the fossil fuel lobbyists, look at whats happening in the UK!
There is a market in the UK, Ireland the whole world, only if its let. We need to convert to renewable energy ASAP and not just on a percentage basis but to 100%. Smart grids on a National/International scale. We as a species are rapidly runnung out of time to save ourselves from our own greed and stupidity. As is initially said CO2 is behaving like carbon monoxide in that it appears to have put us in a stupor.
The one mistake we are making is doing nothing and saying I dont like the look of this.

Greensleeves · 28-01-2014 1:22pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

Maybe their electricity costs are begining to reflect the true cost of energy.
Fossil fuel derived energy never incorporates the cost of the elevelated CO2 in the atmosphere, or any of the other environmental costs, thats left to ordinary taxpayer superfund remediation monies!
Yes THe EU have bowed to the fossil fuel lobbyists, look at whats happening in the UK!
There is a market in the UK, Ireland the whole world, only if its let. We need to convert to renewable energy ASAP and not just on a percentage basis but to 100%. Smart grids on a National/International scale. We as a species are rapidly runnung out of time to save ourselves from our own greed and stupidity. As is initially said CO2 is behaving like carbon monoxide in that it appears to have put us in a stupor.
The one mistake we are making is doing nothing and saying I dont like the look of this.

I agree with plenty of what you say but I think facilitating even more energy production that may go to waste because there is no market for it is environmentally destructive.

Already there is a problem with wind energy in the UK: supply and demand don't coincide so the National Grid is thinking of paying businesses to use electricity at night in order to reduce the curtailment payments made to wind farm operators.

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1226320/uk-considers-paying-businesses-use-wind-power-night

I understand your frustration about the notion of doing nothing but there is no point in doing things that are at best questionable and at worst useless.

BrenCooney · 28-01-2014 9:03pm

Its less environmentally destructive than whats there at present. As I said and I think was said by a pevious poster, we need to change our habits, and if that includes work then so be it. Probably everything needs to change. We are consuming more that our planet can give and more and more people are aspiring for our first world lifestyle and its destroying our planet.
We have run out of options and wether people like renewable energy technology or not we dont have a choice.
on Twitter recently and its amazing to see the lame excuses people give for not wanting renewable energy. "dont like the view" appears to be top of the list. #fail

Macha · 29-01-2014 3:15pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

It is daft to suggest that Ireland would be starting anything; Denmark and Germany are way ahead of us and they have ended up with the most expensive electricity in Europe. And in the case of Germany they have ended up with rising CO2 emissions because when the wind doesn't blow you need backup power and Germany has found it cheapest to use coal and lignite to provide this.

I have covered this last point in detail in previous discussions - coal and lignite use has gone up all over Europe because of cheap imports from the US and a low carbon price. Germany is no exception and is actually a net exporter of power so the coal and lignite it's burning isn't for balancing purposes.

Greensleeves wrote: »

Just last week the EU rowed back on it's renewable energy push, reducing binding renewable targets and leaving it up to the individual member states to decide how best to reduce CO2.

What came out was a Commission proposal. The decision will be made by heads of government in March followed by legislative proposals next year.

Greensleeves wrote: »

Our pylon/wind farm expansion plans are predicated on the notion that there will be a market in the UK and France for our (expensive) electricity. Our own energy needs are predicted to rise at 1.3% per annum to 2020 so there will be no market in Ireland for the excess electricity. Essentially EirGrid are using the tax-payers money to facilitate a gamble by private wind-farm investors. If there is no market for the electricity abroad then it will be wasted because there is no cost-efficient way at the moment to store electricity. It would be a terrible waste of money and the earth's resources to roll-out infrastructure that was surplus to requirements. Ghost estates all over again.

Like I stated in my last post, you can forget about exports and you can forget about climate change and EU renewable targets: Ireland has no other options but to develop its renewables potential.

Greensleeves wrote: »

I'm afraid I disagree with you about not listening to the many very very vocal naysayers whose ulterior motive is to prevent industrial wind farms and unnecessary pylons ruining their quality of life for questionable benefit to the environment. Everyone is entitled to their say. Wind energy became popular in Denmark and Germany because it was based on a community owned, local benefits model. Attempts in both countries to impose industrial wind farms similar to what is proposed for Ireland have met with resistance. Ireland could learn a lot from the experience of other countries if we are humble enough to accept that we are not in the vanguard of anything and that mistakes made elsewhere can provide valuable lessons for us.

Couldn't agree more. The UK just published its Community Energy Strategy two days ago. Ireland needs one:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-energy-strategy

fclauson · 29-01-2014 10:35pm

any one know where I can get a full carbon calculation which shows how long before a wind farm is negative carbon ?

BrenCooney · 29-01-2014 11:05pm

FCaluson

Don't know exactly what you mean by carbon negative?
But if it's what I think you mean it will be less than coal, gas or oil fired power stations which will never be carbon negative.

Greensleeves
It would be great if we could organise ourselves to bring in a community model for renewable energy generation, but personnel experence to date with other aspects of the Irish psyche would not give me encouragement. I have seen first hand the community togetherness the danes have re communial wastewater treatment for a common cause and i have seen the greed and shortsightness we have here to similar schemes.

fclauson · 29-01-2014 11:23pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

FCaluson

Don't know exactly what you mean by carbon negative?
But if it's what I think you mean it will be less than coal, gas or oil fired power stations which will never be carbon negative.

Greensleeves
It would be great if we could organise ourselves to bring in a community model for renewable energy generation, but personnel experence to date with other aspects of the Irish psyche would not give me encouragement. I have seen first hand the community togetherness the danes have re communial wastewater treatment for a common cause and i have seen the greed and shortsightness we have here to similar schemes.

Now - just found this - and it even has a spread sheet to go with it

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-sources/19185/17852-1/CSavings

Any idea if one of these has been done for any Irish wind farm - lets take one in Wexford as an example e.g. Gibert Hill

Happy to help collect data

Its interesting as more wind farms get built and the grid mix comes down then the pay back period extends - there must be a point at which too much wind is too much because it never will pay back its carbon deficit

Macha · 30-01-2014 8:21am

fclauson wrote: »

Its interesting as more wind farms get built and the grid mix comes down then the pay back period extends - there must be a point at which too much wind is too much because it never will pay back its carbon deficit

There's a point whereby you have to have a wider range of technologies with different generation profiles, such as PV.

I don't understand why you are viewing renewables through the singular lens of carbon emissions. Fossil fuel burning also creates health issues though PM2.5 and other air pollutants, they have to be imported, etc etc. It's a multi-facted issue.

fclauson · 30-01-2014 9:26am

Macha wrote: »

There's a point whereby you have to have a wider range of technologies with different generation profiles, such as PV.

I don't understand why you are viewing renewables through the singular lens of carbon emissions. Fossil fuel burning also creates health issues though PM2.5 and other air pollutants, they have to be imported, etc etc. It's a multi-facted issue.

It certainly is - but I am really interested in an empirical calculated benefit model - not in a "it's better because it better". You raise another topic or area of research that again needs to be quantified and measured.

If you look at the Scottish model it shows that there is much more to consider just in terms of carbon than the fuel burnt in the power station. This model could go further - it does not measure anything to do with the laying of cables back to the substation - which in remote locations could be miles of dig up-bury copper-fill in. Additionally I see no calculation for the copper or plastic used in these cables.

So the maths is complicated but needs to be done by someone.

We also need to take in to account around wind that there are issues - our own Irish Department of Health Chief Medical Officer states that there are "a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. There are specific risk factors for this syndrome and people with these risk factors experience symptoms"

So no approach is risk free.

BrenCooney · 30-01-2014 10:22am

I think the same could be looked at with regard to fossil fuel power stations,
Moneypoint in Clare comes to mind with its twin pylon line all the way to Kildare/Dublin. Then there is the massive infrastructure in abstracting the fossil fuels, distrubuting it via pipeline or ship, the storage, the cleanup of CO2 from the atmosphere (which has not really been looked at properly yet).
I'm sure fossil fuel power gereration also utilises copper cables and lots of plastic!
With regard to the Chief Medical Officer quote, can you reference that? The part "industrial wind turbines" looks a bit odd for somebody in his position to mention. I also have not seen any comment by the Chief Medical Officer on the Dept of Enviro website re submissions for the new proposed guidance on wind farms!

fclauson · 30-01-2014 10:57am

BrenCooney wrote: »

I think the same could be looked at with regard to fossil fuel power stations,
Moneypoint in Clare comes to mind with its twin pylon line all the way to Kildare/Dublin. Then there is the massive infrastructure in abstracting the fossil fuels, distrubuting it via pipeline or ship, the storage, the cleanup of CO2 from the atmosphere (which has not really been looked at properly yet).
I'm sure fossil fuel power gereration also utilises copper cables and lots of plastic!

agree but I have to rely on the learned people who wrote the Scottish piece of work for this.

With regard to the Chief Medical Officer quote, can you reference that? The part "industrial wind turbines" looks a bit odd for somebody in his position to mention. I also have not seen any comment by the Chief Medical Officer on the Dept of Enviro website re submissions for the new proposed guidance on wind farms!

Good question - I received material via an AIE request to the DOH - the quote is taken from the last paragraph of their submission which contains a complete paradox.

Why more wind farms & Pylons needed

Comments