"Wind blows away fossil power in the Nordics..."

Xios · 16-10-2014 4:27pm #1

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/nordicpower-windfarm-idUSL6N0S530M20141015

I just don't understand why we're not the leading investor/innovators in wind energy, like just look at this wind map and compare the wind off our coasts with the wind on mainland europe and the nordics.

AnonoBoy · 16-10-2014 4:28pm

I'll leave it to my inner Cork man to answer:

"Ah them wind things, they're fierce noisy like. I'd rather plunder the earth's finite resources first."

Donkey Oaty · 16-10-2014 4:40pm

The removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.

Karl Stein · 16-10-2014 4:40pm

The power of the wind, waves and tide on our west coast alone is equivalent to 12 nuclear power stations running at full capacity 24/7/365.

I just made that up.

Irish Steve · 16-10-2014 4:44pm

The cynic in me says that it's not happening because it's not on the radar of the political establishment, as the return on investment won't be seen in votes at the next election, so they have no interest or awareness of the subject.

The other cynic says that it's because there's another vested interest in keeping non renewable usage high, because the tax take in terms of VAT, and carbon tax on those fuels is helping prop up an increasingly unsustainable system of government.

And yes, the NIMBY aspect of things like wind turbines is another factor, maybe if renewable energy was cheaper than fossil fuel energy, there might be more interest in the option, but while we don't see a "renewable" advantage in the bills we pay, there's no pressure on the relevant people to do anything new or constructive to change the status quo.

josip · 16-10-2014 4:52pm

Long term thinking in Ireland is done by our children who wonder what Santa will bring them.

Its Only Ray Parlour · 16-10-2014 4:56pm

Xios wrote: »

I just don't understand why we're not the leading investor/innovators in wind energy, like just look at this wind map and compare the wind off our coasts with the wind on mainland europe and the nordics.

We do get a lot of wind but a current weather chart isn't indicative of the average wind speed across Europe, just so you know.

The west coast of Norway is very windy also.

Xios · 16-10-2014 4:59pm

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

We do get a lot of wind but a current weather chart isn't indicative of the average wind speed across Europe, just so you know.

The west coast of Norway is very windy also.

That's true, also check out the wind map on the top right. We're in the Red, meaning, cash in now....

Micky Dolenz · 16-10-2014 5:02pm

Wind is where it's at. Harvest the power of cow farts.

Cool Mo D · 16-10-2014 5:05pm

Ireland is one of the leading countries in Europe for wind - we are 5th in wind power per person. And only Denmark has more dependable wind power than us, we are perfectly placed to build more.

https://i.imgur.com/8xc6K9x.png

Mad_Dave · 16-10-2014 5:06pm

Xios wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/nordicpower-windfarm-idUSL6N0S530M20141015

I just don't understand why we're not the leading investor/innovators in wind energy, like just look at this wind map and compare the wind off our coasts with the wind on mainland europe and the nordics.

Not all the windy areas are deemed suitable for wind farms in the various County Development Plans.
There's a serious amount of red tape to get planning permission, funding, a grid connection agreement from Eirgrid, transmission lines built to the wind farm (if required) and getting into the REFIT scheme.
There's a lack of infrastructure to move the wind energy from the West coast (see Eirgrids Grid West interconnector proposal as part of Grid 25).
Our national grid will collapse if you put all the available wind energy onto it.
NIMBYism as already mentioned.
Gas is cheaper.

There's lots of other reasons, some good, some bad.

Iwasfrozen · 16-10-2014 5:13pm

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

snubbleste · 16-10-2014 5:21pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

They are also illegal in this country

Karl Stein · 16-10-2014 5:21pm

It was only a matter of time before a nuke-power fanboy would show up.

Barely There · 16-10-2014 5:28pm

Future generations will look back and snigger at our obsession with wind power - we'll never get back any return from it - the only reason we're building wind farms is because of the tax-breaks it's given.

There may be some future in tidal power, but there's a lot more work to be done to make it anyway economical.

We should have been building nuclear power plants here 40 years ago - of course successive governments have never had the balls to stand up to the uneducated loudmouths who shouted down such sensible proposals.

Mr.David · 16-10-2014 5:29pm

Nordic power is predominantly hydro driven, not wind.

Wind can never really make up more than a certain % of any country's power generation portfolio.

Nuke is ideal, it just runs quietly at 100% output all the time and absorbs the base-load power requirements for a country whilst wind power can then be used for the variable demand.

Iwasfrozen · 16-10-2014 5:31pm

snubbleste wrote: »

They are also illegal in this country

That's just a legislation change away.

Karl Stein · 16-10-2014 5:36pm

Barely There wrote: »

Future generations will look back and snigger at our obsession with wind power

My crystal ball says different. Future generations will look back at the time we built nuke-power stations and think 'how could they have left us such a poisonous legacy'.

we'll never get back any return from it - the only reason we're building wind farms is because of the tax-breaks it's given.

You do know that oil and nuke-power receive massive subsidies don't you? Private industry wouldn't touch nuke-power and only get involved because the costs and risks are borne by the public for generations.

Mr.David · 16-10-2014 5:43pm

Karl Stein wrote: »

Future generations will look back at the time we built nuke-power stations and think 'how could they have left us such a poisonous legacy'

What poisonous legacy?

Carbon fueled power plants (mainly coal) are estimated to be responsible for 10,000 deaths per annum due to respiratory problems. Thats far far more than nuclear has ever caused.

Also, in terms of waste, are you aware that ALL of France's waste (France is hugely nuclear driven) is stored in a single facility approximately the size of a school gym hall?

The myths surrounding nuclear energy are really astounding.

end of the road · 16-10-2014 5:44pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

well, until we can find somewhere that isn't in or near a residential area, or an area of beauty and signifficance, we won't be building any here. they do cost a bit to build, and no doubt if we were to build any here it would be a government cronie getting the contract to build.

end of the road · 16-10-2014 5:46pm

Barely There wrote: »

Future generations will look back and snigger at our obsession with wind power - we'll never get back any return from it - the only reason we're building wind farms is because of the tax-breaks it's given.

There may be some future in tidal power, but there's a lot more work to be done to make it anyway economical.

We should have been building nuclear power plants here 40 years ago - of course successive governments have never had the balls to stand up to the uneducated loudmouths who shouted down such sensible proposals.

the "uneducated loudmouths" who would be living near one of them.

Mr.David · 16-10-2014 5:47pm

end of the road wrote: »

the "uneducated loudmouths" who would be living near one of them.

Surely that is a problem whether you choose nuclear/coal/oil/wind power plants? What makes that specific to nuclear power?

SEPT 23 1989 · 16-10-2014 5:47pm

end of the road wrote: »

well, until we can find somewhere that isn't in or near a residential area, or an area of beauty and signifficance, we won't be building any here.

Leitrim?

end of the road · 16-10-2014 5:50pm

Karl Stein wrote: »

My crystal ball says different. Future generations will look back at the time we built nuke-power stations and think 'how could they have left us such a poisonous legacy'.

You do know that oil and nuke-power receive massive subsidies don't you? Private industry wouldn't touch nuke-power and only get involved because the costs and risks are borne by the public for generations.

shhhhhhhhhhh. your not supposed to say such aweful things about the perfect private sector, they are thee answer to the worlds ills. oh, wait

Mr.David · 16-10-2014 5:51pm

Karl Stein wrote: »

You do know that oil and nuke-power receive massive subsidies don't you?

Source?

Karl Stein · 16-10-2014 5:54pm

Mr.David wrote: »

What poisonous legacy?

You know, the waste that stays radioactive for thousands of years.

Carbon fueled power plants (mainly coal) are estimated to be responsible for 10,000 deaths per annum due to respiratory problems. Thats far far more than nuclear has ever caused.

Ah the old death count non-argument. People die in cars - cars are bad. See how silly that 'logic' is?

Also, in terms of waste, are you aware that ALL of France's waste (France is hugely nuclear driven) is stored in a single facility approximately the size of a school gym hall?

So what? What are the costs? How much does it cost to keep nuclear waste secure for thousands of years? This cost is borne by the public.

The myths surrounding nuclear energy are really astounding.

The propaganda surrounding nuclear energy is remarkable.

Karl Stein · 16-10-2014 6:01pm

Mr.David wrote: »

Source?

You seriously don't know that every single nuke-power station ever built was a government underwritten project in both the short and long term? Deary me, and here you are arguing the virtues of nuke-power.

Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers.

wikipedia.org

As for fossil fuels:

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.

priceofoil.org

The above figure doesn't factor in the misery caused to populations were access to oil reserves is secured by supporting dictators, despots and war.

Iwasfrozen · 16-10-2014 6:07pm

end of the road wrote: »

well, until we can find somewhere that isn't in or near a residential area, or an area of beauty and signifficance, we won't be building any here. they do cost a bit to build, and no doubt if we were to build any here it would be a government cronie getting the contract to build.

That's not a problem unique to nuclear.

Iwasfrozen · 16-10-2014 6:10pm

I don't see why it matters whether government or the private sector build the plants.

Calibos · 16-10-2014 6:11pm

The boat has sailed on nuclear Fission. We are better off waiting for Nuclear Fusion at this point. Interesting announcement from Lockheed about a new reactor design they are working on yesterday. If that came off and in the timescale they are talking about then it changes everything. I know Fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years but it looks like there is finally decent progress. Our tardiness in investing big time in Fission or renewables might be a blessing in the end.

http://www.cnet.com/news/lockheed-figures-out-fusion-maybe/

Iwasfrozen · 16-10-2014 6:25pm

Calibos wrote: »

The boat has sailed on nuclear Fission. We are better off waiting for Nuclear Fusion at this point. Interesting announcement from Lockheed about a new reactor design they are working on yesterday. If that came off and in the timescale they are talking about then it changes everything. I know Fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years but it looks like there is finally decent progress. Our tardiness in investing big time in Fission or renewables might be a blessing in the end.

http://www.cnet.com/news/lockheed-figures-out-fusion-maybe/

Why has the ship sailed on nuclear fission? Every decade nuclear plants get safer as technology improves.

I agree with you on nuclear fusion though, that will be a game changer when (if) it's developed.

"Wind blows away fossil power in the Nordics..."

Comments