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

First of the Windmills in Dublin Port

  • 31-03-2012 11:26pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭


    Dublin Port has been toying with the idea of putting a few wind turbines about the place to offset their massive power demands. The first one came online in the past few days and plans for a few more are in the pipeline. The 1st one is beside Terminal 1 (The Irish Ferries Terminal). Probably not the most ideal place for the turbine but as a PR thing it is seen by more people than if it was anywhere else.

    Excuse the camera phone photo
    bHvMGM

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/59839425@N05/7033356009/

    bHvMGM


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    Does anyone know how much this machine cost?

    What kW rating is it?

    Is it just a PR exercise, as suggested by the OP?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,676 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Eh, check the date of post... :o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭seanmacc


    Does anyone know how much this machine cost?

    What kW rating is it?

    Is it just a PR exercise, as suggested by the OP?

    In terms of cost of it the figure probably won't be published for a while as it's the first of many planned for the port area. From talking to a couple of Dublin Port maintenance workers the engineers installing the turbine wanted it much closer to the quay wall for more efficient generation. But less people would of seen it there.

    Its been up and running for over a week now and spins periodically during the day. Often still when there's a good wind and goes like the clappers when there's only a slight breeze. I'd be interested to know how successful it is after a year, I'll try and get the kW rating off someone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    Thanks, Sean.

    It looks to be about 10kW rating or so.

    I agree that it is not in the best position as it is surrounded by large ferries and a few buildings, so it looks like it was primarily for PR purposes. I'd expect it to deliver no more than about 16% of its rating on average over a year.

    It would be interesting to see the projected rate of return for this turbine and the project as a whole.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭seanmacc


    7033356009_cff52de6a2.jpg


    Just got my flickr posting issue sorted.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭seanmacc


    Does anyone know how much this machine cost?

    What kW rating is it?

    Is it just a PR exercise, as suggested by the OP?

    Cost 40,000 euro apparently and is 8k/w.

    Supposedly the gearing in it is wrong and has proved near enough worthless so far. But it makes Dublin Port look green.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    Four chemical companies in the lower harbour in Cork have had permission approved for six giant wind turbines. However an objection has been made, by an former assistant manager at the planning authority at Cork Co Co so the matter will now go to An Bord Planala.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    seanmacc wrote: »
    Cost 40,000 euro apparently and is 8k/w.

    Supposedly the gearing in it is wrong and has proved near enough worthless so far. But it makes Dublin Port look green.
    Let's see whether they are Green or just "green".

    Assuming there is no maintenance cost
    and that they got the money for free (no interest)
    and that it never breaks down or needs any parts,
    and that the machine lasts for its full 20 design life:

    The cost of €40k works out at €2,000 per year.

    A wind turbine of this size will produce about 16% of its rating on average over the year in a reasonably good location. So the expected energy out per year is 8 * 0.16 * 24 * 365 = 11,213 units of electricity per year. If each unit is worth, say, 15 cents, this represents an income of 11,213 * 0.15 = €1,682 per year.

    So, they spend a minimum of €2,000 per year to save a maximum of €1,682 per year.

    Green (as in Party) or green (as in foolish)? You decide! I know that they don't fool me even if they are fooling themselves!

    If this gets out, what will it do for PR? How sympathetic will people be when they look to increase Port charges?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 skillian


    I had a look at the little plaque at the base of the turbine today, it's rated at 11 kW. According to http://www.cfgreenenergy.com/product/cf-11 it's good for 24,000 kWh at 5m/s average windspeed.

    Got this image from Met Éireann that says that the average windspeed in Dublin is approx. 6 m/s so maybe it isn't such a bad call.
    climate_windmap02.gif

    Measure Twice, can you do the math on that for us?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    skillian wrote: »
    I had a look at the little plaque at the base of the turbine today, it's rated at 11 kW. According to http://www.cfgreenenergy.com/product/cf-11 it's good for 24,000 kWh at 5m/s average windspeed.

    Got this image from Met Éireann that says that the average windspeed in Dublin is approx. 6 m/s so maybe it isn't such a bad call.
    climate_windmap02.gif

    Measure Twice, can you do the math on that for us?
    Good info - thanks.

    CF Green Energy correctly estimate the output of this 11 kW machine in a reasonable location and it works out at 25%. This is called the capacity factor and is the average output over a year expressed as a % of its rated 11 kW output.

    Where this machine is located, it would be surprising if the capacity factor exceeded 18% over a typical year. So, let's work with this figure but include a typical 5% per annum for maintenance costs. We'll ignore the cost of finance, depreciation, insurance and major faults.

    Cost of the machine = €40k / 20 years = €2,000 per year.
    Maintenance costs = 5% of €40k = €2,000 per year.
    Total costs = €4,000 per year.

    Electrical Output = 11 kW * 8760 hours/year * 18% = 17,345 units of electricity / year.

    To recoup the annual costs of €4,000, each unit would need to be worth 4,000 / 11,345 = 23 cent per unit.

    There is no way to justify a cost of 23 cent per unit when even domestic electricity costs far less than that. If they sold the output to the Grid they would get just over 7 cents per unit.

    As a financial investment, they would be better off putting the €40,000 into a Government Bond and collecting the interest. They need not come out with the begging bowl when they are able to make such unsound investments as this machine represents.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5 skillian


    Well I'm not sure about the de-rating and the maintenance costs that you are applying. I was over there yesterday and it's in a great spot, you couldn't get a better one in the city. It's right on the quay wall with a good half mile of clear sea upwind of it (given that our prevailing wind is southwesterly). Granted I haven't yet seen how the Ulysses affects this - it probably does (the Ulysses is the big ship that you can see in the OP's photo).

    Let's be conservative and assume the following:
    · The average wind speed in Dublin and hence this location is 5m/s (which is an underestimate, as per Met Éireann's data in my last post)
    · The manufacturer's data concerning power production at 5m/s is correct
    · The Ulysses is docked for 6 hours a day or in other words 25% of the time and knocks the turbine to a third of its power (almost certanly overconservative)
    · Maintenance is €1000 a year (look at the second last page of http://blog.silverford.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Supply_Agr_Scotland_New_Customer_July_20111.pdf, average of GBP£850 over the first 10 years in the UK. These turbines are made in Ireland according to their website so converting from £ to € is probably an overestimate as these guys don't have to get on a boat and drive across the UK to service it - again I am being conservative)

    So we have:
    Electrical output (Ulysses not in dock - 75% of the time) = 24,000 x 75% = 18,000 units
    Electrical output (Ulysses in dock - 25% of the time) = 24,000 x 25% / 3 = 2,000 units
    Total electrical output = 20,000 units/year

    Cost per year is €40k/20 + €1000 = €3000 so cost per unit = €3000/20,000 = 15 cent. This is pretty much commercial rates AFIK. It's certainly a little better than domestic rates anyway. 7c/unit for selling back to the grid sounds dismal but I'm going to assume that they consume all of it, thus saving them commercial rates.

    So it's not all that bad after all. It certainly doesn't loose them money anyway which is the main point.

    Measure Twice, it sounds that you have a bee in your bonnet about this. Just to let you know, I don't work for the turbine company or anything, I just don't like how numbers can be manipulated to emphasise one's point. Note that all my figures are backed up (apart from the de-rating factor applied to the reduction in output whilst the Ulysses is docked, hence the extremely conservative number). Hell, I'm just a bored engineering student with little care for the renewable hype that's in vogue at the moment but at least I'll try to make an unbiased judgment on these things before I diss them.

    If you want a proper example of renewable bulls**t then the following link will interest you. It's another example of someone skewing numbers in their favour except this time he's trying to promote the wind industry: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/blogs/how-would-you-spend-7-billion

    Sorry that was a long post...:eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    skillian wrote: »
    Well I'm not sure about the de-rating and the maintenance costs that you are applying. I was over there yesterday and it's in a great spot, you couldn't get a better one in the city. It's right on the quay wall with a good half mile of clear sea upwind of it (given that our prevailing wind is southwesterly). Granted I haven't yet seen how the Ulysses affects this - it probably does (the Ulysses is the big ship that you can see in the OP's photo).

    Let's be conservative and assume the following:
    · The average wind speed in Dublin and hence this location is 5m/s (which is an underestimate, as per Met Éireann's data in my last post)
    · The manufacturer's data concerning power production at 5m/s is correct
    · The Ulysses is docked for 6 hours a day or in other words 25% of the time and knocks the turbine to a third of its power (almost certanly overconservative)
    · Maintenance is €1000 a year (look at the second last page of http://blog.silverford.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Supply_Agr_Scotland_New_Customer_July_20111.pdf, average of GBP£850 over the first 10 years in the UK. These turbines are made in Ireland according to their website so converting from £ to € is probably an overestimate as these guys don't have to get on a boat and drive across the UK to service it - again I am being conservative)

    So we have:
    Electrical output (Ulysses not in dock - 75% of the time) = 24,000 x 75% = 18,000 units
    Electrical output (Ulysses in dock - 25% of the time) = 24,000 x 25% / 3 = 2,000 units
    Total electrical output = 20,000 units/year

    Cost per year is €40k/20 + €1000 = €3000 so cost per unit = €3000/20,000 = 15 cent. This is pretty much commercial rates AFIK. It's certainly a little better than domestic rates anyway. 7c/unit for selling back to the grid sounds dismal but I'm going to assume that they consume all of it, thus saving them commercial rates.

    So it's not all that bad after all. It certainly doesn't loose them money anyway which is the main point.

    Measure Twice, it sounds that you have a bee in your bonnet about this. Just to let you know, I don't work for the turbine company or anything, I just don't like how numbers can be manipulated to emphasise one's point. Note that all my figures are backed up (apart from the de-rating factor applied to the reduction in output whilst the Ulysses is docked, hence the extremely conservative number). Hell, I'm just a bored engineering student with little care for the renewable hype that's in vogue at the moment but at least I'll try to make an unbiased judgment on these things before I diss them.

    If you want a proper example of renewable bulls**t then the following link will interest you. It's another example of someone skewing numbers in their favour except this time he's trying to promote the wind industry: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/blogs/how-would-you-spend-7-billion

    Sorry that was a long post...:eek:
    Skillian,

    Good analysis which adds to the body of knowledge on this project. I'm always willing to change my mind in the face of evidence, so thanks for your input - but there's a bit more to this still.

    We'd need to know the average wind speed at this location and at 15 metres elevation (the hub height). Dun Laoghaire records show an average of around 9.7 knots over the past 6 to 7 years, and this is 5 m/s. That's on top of their Ferry Terminal but may be a reasonable figure to use in the absence of the measured values in Dublin Port. The Met Eireann wind map is not clear as to what elevation the readings were taken at. Dublin Port is at sea level so there would be many better sites in Dublin than at the Port.

    Remember the cubed rule applies here so that if the wind speed doubles the energy in the wind increases eight-fold. So wind speed is very important.

    The prevailing wind in Dublin is actually Westerly so it comes down the river, with all the disturbances, buildings and ships that involves. While the easterly wind crosses open sea up to the wind turbine, there is also the pier wall to consider. While this will increase wind speed, it will also disturb the smooth, laminar flow of the wind and this will affect the conversion efficiency.

    Using 25% capacity factor for this site is optimistic in practise. I'm familiar with a Dublin wind turbine in a reasonable location that produces about 16% capacity factor. The national average in 2010 was 21.4% and that included much larger machines with better characteristics than the CF11 machine. That's why I used 18% as a reasonable estimate for this project.

    But these are only estimates and may or may not be 100% accurate.

    I've no bees and no bonnets. Just the analysis to date is not encouraging. How many of these project sponsors have wind turbines in their gardens? Or are they only using them for corporate and PR reasons?

    I believe in doing the sums and checking them twice before I approve of spending other people's money, never mind my own!

    So far, I've only seen where large machines (> 1MW) are economical for heavy electrical users but increase electricity costs for the general user (those that cannot afford to install large turbines). All other machines fail any reasonable cost benefit analysis.

    But I'm open to correction, as ever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 skillian


    Measure Twice,

    Thank you for your points. I must say I agree with most but I don’t think that it’s reasonable to compare the capacity factor of different turbines without additional considerations.

    I for one find suspect that this turbine would have a higher capacity factor than the national average. Why? Well what is the capacity factor of a turbine a function of? Obviously, the average wind speed of the site in question at hub height plays an important rule. But the capacity factor of a turbine installation is also dependent on the turbine itself (specifically the wind speed at which the turbine produces its rated power – the rated wind speed) and this is a point that people consistently fail to take into account.

    Consider the extreme case of a turbine with a rated speed of infinitesimally greater than 0 m/s that produces its rated power at all speeds greater than this threshold. Because all wind speeds are essentially nonzero, the capacity factor of such a turbine would be 100%. Using the same logic, it is clear that as the rated wind speed of the turbine is increased, the capacity factor of that turbine will fall as a greater portion of the wind speeds fall below its rated speed and thus the turbine spends a greater portion of its time operating at less than its rated power.

    Compare the rated wind speeds of the CF turbine in question (http://www.cfgreenenergy.com/product/cf-11) and of commercial scale turbines common in Ireland such as the e82 (http://twinkle_toes_engineering.home.comcast.net/~twinkle_toes_engineering/wind_turbine_enercon_e82_power_curve.jpg) or the GE 1.5 (http://www.nofreewind.com/2009/05/how-often-does-turbine-produce-power.html). The CF turbine has a rated speed of 9m/s versus a rated speed of 11.5 - 12m/s for the large turbines.

    How much of an effect does this have on the capacity factor of the turbine? I did out the following graph that plots the theoretical maximum capacity factor vs. cutout speed for Weibull distributed wind speeds with alpha = 2 and beta = 7. (Typically seen in Ireland). You can have the excel file if you are interested. You can see that for turbines with rated speeds near 12 m/s the maximum capacity factor can never exceed ~25%, whereas at 9 m/s the theoretical maximum capacity factor is ~40%.


    r8sa4n.jpg

    Granted, sites will differ and these values will change as the Weibull parameters change. But the point remains that you cannot directly compare the capacity factors of different turbines if their rated speeds are different. For this reason the most methodical course of action is to assume that the manufacturer’s data is correct.

    I've no bees and no bonnets. Just the analysis to date is not encouraging. How many of these project sponsors have wind turbines in their gardens? Or are they only using them for corporate and PR reasons?

    I think it's quite clear that you’re not a big fan of the wind industry. That's not an insult by the way, I have spent the last few months working on a project focusing on the this area and I too am not convinced that wind can ever deliver consistent, reliable, dispatchable energy at competitive prices (<10c/kWh) at high penetrations (thus requiring storage). I do however believe that wind can play a valuable role in penetrations up to ~15%.

    Mind I ask what area of study/work you are in and why you are particularly interested in this topic?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    skillian wrote: »
    Measure Twice,

    Thank you for your points. I must say I agree with most but I don’t think that it’s reasonable to compare the capacity factor of different turbines without additional considerations.

    I for one find suspect that this turbine would have a higher capacity factor than the national average. Why? Well what is the capacity factor of a turbine a function of? Obviously, the average wind speed of the site in question at hub height plays an important rule. But the capacity factor of a turbine installation is also dependent on the turbine itself (specifically the wind speed at which the turbine produces its rated power – the rated wind speed) and this is a point that people consistently fail to take into account.

    Consider the extreme case of a turbine with a rated speed of infinitesimally greater than 0 m/s that produces its rated power at all speeds greater than this threshold. Because all wind speeds are essentially nonzero, the capacity factor of such a turbine would be 100%. Using the same logic, it is clear that as the rated wind speed of the turbine is increased, the capacity factor of that turbine will fall as a greater portion of the wind speeds fall below its rated speed and thus the turbine spends a greater portion of its time operating at less than its rated power.

    Compare the rated wind speeds of the CF turbine in question (http://www.cfgreenenergy.com/product/cf-11) and of commercial scale turbines common in Ireland such as the e82 (http://twinkle_toes_engineering.home.comcast.net/~twinkle_toes_engineering/wind_turbine_enercon_e82_power_curve.jpg) or the GE 1.5 (http://www.nofreewind.com/2009/05/how-often-does-turbine-produce-power.html). The CF turbine has a rated speed of 9m/s versus a rated speed of 11.5 - 12m/s for the large turbines.

    How much of an effect does this have on the capacity factor of the turbine? I did out the following graph that plots the theoretical maximum capacity factor vs. cutout speed for Weibull distributed wind speeds with alpha = 2 and beta = 7. (Typically seen in Ireland). You can have the excel file if you are interested. You can see that for turbines with rated speeds near 12 m/s the maximum capacity factor can never exceed ~25%, whereas at 9 m/s the theoretical maximum capacity factor is ~40%.


    r8sa4n.jpg

    Granted, sites will differ and these values will change as the Weibull parameters change. But the point remains that you cannot directly compare the capacity factors of different turbines if their rated speeds are different. For this reason the most methodical course of action is to assume that the manufacturer’s data is correct.


    I think it's quite clear that you’re not a big fan of the wind industry. That's not an insult by the way, I have spent the last few months working on a project focusing on the this area and I too am not convinced that wind can ever deliver consistent, reliable, dispatchable energy at competitive prices (<10c/kWh) at high penetrations (thus requiring storage). I do however believe that wind can play a valuable role in penetrations up to ~15%.

    Mind I ask what area of study/work you are in and why you are particularly interested in this topic?
    I pretty much agree with your assessment which is quite methodical - well done.

    Wind is intermittent by its very nature and so wind energy alone can never be consistent or reliable and can only be dispatchable with storage. However, it can add a certain amount of independence to a resource-poor island such as ours at penetration up to about 15%, as you rightly conclude. Above 15% and the costs outweigh the benefits to too great an extent.

    I'm interested in this topic because I have 2 children who I would like to see having access to affordable and reliable energy when they grow up, and I fear that our current renewable energy policy will not allow that. Our current policy is to get 40% of our electricity from wind energy by 2020 and I know that this cannot be achieved at any reasonable cost even if it becomes technically feasible which it currently is not. I know that the predicted savings in fuel and emissions are not attainable in practice and we will be left to install at short notice a reliable, low-Carbon technology in order to avoid large penalties or power cuts.

    The choice will fall to gas fracking and either coal-fired carbon capture and storage or nuclear power. We are not ready for either option because too many people believe that wind will do it all for us, but it won't.

    I'm an engineer working in the power sector in Ireland, to answer your final question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 skillian


    Yeah you're right, and it's good to hear from someone who works in the power sector. However how many people are ever going to support any of those options? Not many anyway. In the end, new generation in the next 10 or 20 years will more than likely be 50:50 wind and interconnection with the UK at high costs.

    What is needed is a state run gas exploration company and a large government investment. Haha, we would have more chance with nuclear!

    Anyway we're completly off topic, this should be moved to a new thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭zagmund


    Here's the non-science bit.

    I'd say it's getting a fair old workout with the wind today.

    z


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭seanmacc


    zagmund wrote: »
    Here's the non-science bit.

    I'd say it's getting a fair old workout with the wind today.

    z

    The few heavy wind days that we've had the turbine has actually been still. Not sure about today though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    skillian wrote: »
    In the end, new generation in the next 10 or 20 years will more than likely be 50:50 wind and interconnection with the UK at high costs.

    What is needed is a state run gas exploration company and a large government investment. Haha, we would have more chance with nuclear!
    Not really. The more wind turbines you have, the more gas turbines you need to make up for the variability of the wind. So, Gas will be bigger in future whether it is from gas fracking or not. Along with large pumped storage plants.

    Also, something is needed to replace the coal and peat stations which are base load at the moment. This will be carbon capture and storage if it ever becomes developed and economical. If not, it will be nuclear.

    All this, of course, depends on our ability to get large infrastructure built in any reasonable timeframe. That is the bigger challenge.

    But now it is time to get back to the topic.......

    Saudi Arabia and the UAE are going nuclear and so, probably, will we.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Measure Twice


    This machine doesn't seem to have turned at all in the past couple of days, even though the wind speed is 10 to 15 m/s and should be ideal for max output.

    Is there a problem with it, does anyone know?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 276 ✭✭Rocky Bay


    zagmund wrote: »
    Here's the non-science bit.

    I'd say it's getting a fair old workout with the wind today.

    z
    Here is the sad bit...thousands of birds are killed by windmills on a daily basis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20 Junkjack


    Why is everyone so interested/ obsessed in the payback of these machines, sure would you be looking for payback for the full amount if you bought a new car and selling it10 years later. A turbine or solar panels or any other kind of renewable system is a luxury. Like the new hybrid or all electric cars and vans, they are very expensive but cost less to run.
    Once you have it, it will reduce ur, electricity straight away


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭iopener


    i heard it cost something like 80 grand to install from the manufacturer C AND F galway,that's before you get your grant from sustainable energy ireland which would lower the cost,the maintenance manager down there's new thing is green energy.it's a 11kw turbine,it's actually designed to 'lock out' in high winds so that the blades don't rotate too fast and wreck itself (there's a good video on youtube of one complety destroying itself) ,i have to admit the first few weeks disappointing,1 of the inverters blew,but the last few weeks the turbine is running steady,the wind down there is nearly constant even in the middle of summer the breeze coming from the sea is freezing,i agree it's p.r. exercise but at least it's a start.another 100 of more to go.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20 Junkjack


    iopener wrote: »
    i heard it cost something like 80 grand to install from the manufacturer C AND F galway,that's before you get your grant from sustainable energy ireland which would lower the cost,the maintenance manager down there's new thing is green energy.it's a 11kw turbine,it's actually designed to 'lock out' in high winds so that the blades don't rotate too fast and wreck itself (there's a good video on youtube of one complety destroying itself) ,i have to admit the first few weeks disappointing,1 of the inverters blew,but the last few weeks the turbine is running steady,the wind down there is nearly constant even in the middle of summer the breeze coming from the sea is freezing,i agree it's p.r. exercise but at least it's a start.another 100 of more to go.

    80 grand, now that's expensive. You could install a few roof top turbines for that price


Advertisement