Wind farms - ugly truths

Old diesel · 30-05-2014 4:46pm

Anyway this is my last contribution to this thread -

But some outstanding issues with regard to wind - imo

1) Planning - yes that old chesnut again - what is an appropriate setback distance OR EVEN BETTER how do we calculate an appropriate setback distance - taking into account the type/size of turbine etc.

The standard I would like to achieve in relation to planning and setbacks is this - where a home is pleasant to live in prior to the wind farm been built in the area or nearby - I would like to see this continue when wind farm is operational.

Pleasant is a subjective term - but I choose the term - because it relates to what a home is like to live in - and doesn't go down the road - of - right don't want turbines - but instead opens the door to discussion on PROPERLY planned turbines that don't interfere with everyday living.

2) Planning for the future of communities

Do we just look at communities as places to put a wind farm - or do we take a more positive outlook on communities as places where people live. Id like to see as many communities as possible continue - as COMMUNITIES - not just seen as places to put wind turbines. That doesn't mean NO turbines - it means doing our best to plan wind farms in a manner that is as compatible as possible with COMMUNITY living.

3) Performance - how do we improve the consistency of performance from turbines in future - and how do we embrace the idea of looking at other alternatives to wind in the renewables field - so we have a mix of options.

Biomass for example - does have its flaws - but should be able to operate on days when turbines aren't moving due to low wind - this would assist in the short term in meeting our renewable targets - and would reduce the number of turbines needed to reach targets.

I say biomass would assist short term because it does have its flaws - but it could help bridge the gap while alternatives are developed

ted1 · 30-05-2014 9:44pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re saying that Ireland’s power generation is becoming more carbon intensive? Because any figures I’ve seen suggest otherwise.

It's being up and down the past few years.
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Emission_Factors/Electricity_Emission_Factors.pdf

Our moving away from peat and the increase in CCGT would skew the results for wind.

ted1 · 30-05-2014 9:49pm

mikep wrote: »

I have been keeping an eye on this and am somewhat intrigued by it all...

I think eveidence that wind energy works can be found by the fact that big pharma see it as a part of their plans for the future.
From what I know of these companies they tend to avoid big investments that won't give any payback..

http://www.thejournal.ie/wind-turbines-cork-lower-harbour-1492510-May2014/

To the OP, is it just wind energy you are against? As we can see you have another thread going about the "health effects" of wind turbines.

You'd be surprised. Lots of it is just PR. I've seen pharma plants make a balls of their calculations and end up dumping heat from The CHP for 8 months of the year.
I work with most pharma and manufacturing plants and what they do dorsnt always make sense. They buy energy at much lower prices. Capex on energy can be financed very cheaply and written off so without it actually turning they can break even

djpbarry · 30-05-2014 10:50pm

ted1 wrote: »

It's being up and down the past few years.
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Emission_Factors/Electricity_Emission_Factors.pdf

Our moving away from peat and the increase in CCGT would skew the results for wind.

It's on a downward trend and I never said that newer gas-fired plants did not play a role.

Macha · 30-05-2014 10:58pm

ted1 wrote: »

It's being up and down the past few years.
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Emission_Factors/Electricity_Emission_Factors.pdf

Our moving away from peat and the increase in CCGT would skew the results for wind.

My guess is that the increase from 2011 to 2012 was experienced across Europe as cheap shale gas in the US allowed them to export their coal (and emissions) into Europe and the weak ETS did nothing to keep it out. Coal has been beating gas on most wholesale power markets across Europe for quite some time.

Birdnuts · 31-05-2014 12:03am

mikep wrote: »

I have been keeping an eye on this and am somewhat intrigued by it all...

I think eveidence that wind energy works can be found by the fact that big pharma see it as a part of their plans for the future.
From what I know of these companies they tend to avoid big investments that won't give any payback..

http://www.thejournal.ie/wind-turbines-cork-lower-harbour-1492510-May2014/

To the OP, is it just wind energy you are against? As we can see you have another thread going about the "health effects" of wind turbines.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-council-as-wind-power-fails-to-light-up-20m-park-29709815.html

Hope it works better than this farce. I suspect a lot of this nonsense is PR related to make corporations look like they care. In most cases its simply empty green wash.

Birdnuts · 31-05-2014 12:08am

fclauson wrote: »

With the additional of more inland farms it will be interesting to see if the 30% sticks

The 30% figure is rarely reached in this country - just look at Eirgrids figures since 2005. Notable that during the extreme cold winter of 2010 the figure was under 25%. This is a trend seen across Europe which is why more coal is being used in places like Germany

Macha · 31-05-2014 8:29am

Birdnuts wrote: »

The 30% figure is rarely reached in this country - just look at Eirgrids figures since 2005. Notable that during the extreme cold winter of 2010 the figure was under 25%. This is a trend seen across Europe which is why more coal is being used in places like Germany

Ugh no it's not. I just explained above why more coal is being used across Europe, in Germany and practically every other country as well. Are you just making stuff up because it fits your narrative? I don't know, nor have I read, any credible energy analyst who would equate more coal use in Germany as a result of renewable installation capacity factors. Everybody knows its related to American shale gas, especially the European coal industry itself.

I don't understand the obsession with capacity factors on this forum and my guess it it comes from an inability to break with the idea of baseload. In a flexible energy system, energy is more valuable if it can respond to demand, can engage in balancing markets, provide ancillary services, how it interacts with energy technologies on the system, where it can be built, if it reduces the need for transmission. In this sort of system, for example, wind turbines that can capture energy more efficiently in low wind conditions are extremely valuable.

Solar panels probably convert about 20% of the sunlight into electricity: coal power probably converts about <0.001% of the original sunlight into electricity. Let's get a bit of perspective on this.

Jim Martin · 31-05-2014 10:42am

Old diesel wrote: »

Biomass for example - does have its flaws - but should be able to operate on days when turbines aren't moving due to low wind - this would assist in the short term in meeting our renewable targets - and would reduce the number of turbines needed to reach targets.

I say biomass would assist short term because it does have its flaws - but it could help bridge the gap while alternatives are developed

I don't think biomass is the answer as it would not be as instantaneous as gas fired!

Macha · 31-05-2014 10:45am

Jim Martin wrote: »

I don't think biomass is the answer as it would not be as instantaneous as gas fired!

Biogas?

Old diesel · 31-05-2014 1:57pm

Jim Martin wrote: »

I don't think biomass is the answer as it would not be as instantaneous as gas fired!

Your probably right - maybe im wrong in thinking it should be a back up.

But we SHOULD consider finding a home for it in the system - even on smaller scale - as it could be useful in helping meet our renewables targets - as it could be kept going even on low wind days when turbines are not operational.

Using biomass - on a smaller scale - on a continuous basis thus merits been looked at as a short term bridging option while we continue to work towards alternatives to just wind on its own.

Where biomass COULD prove useful is for things like powering a factory - like the Aurivo plant in Co Roscommon - which I understand will even be able to export power to the grid - but im very much open to correction.

Its not a perfect solution for the long term - as there are potential sustainability issues long term.

But maybe that's one of the things we COULD work on in the long term - how can we improve the sustainability of biomass

Old diesel · 31-05-2014 2:00pm

Macha wrote: »

Biogas?

All options must be carefully considered - the big issue with wind imo at the moment - isn't simply the fact - that its wind.

But the fact that Ireland appears determined to go for a 100 percent wind based solution for our RENEWABLE electricity.

That wouldn't be so bad if Wind was perfect - but it does have flaws - which have been outlined already.

It does have a place in our electricity supply - but we need (short term) to find solutions to the planning issues that cause community concerns - and (long term) work to improve the technology.

Such as - you yourself - alluded to earlier - working to improve the performance of turbines in low winds

Macha · 31-05-2014 2:19pm

Old diesel wrote: »

That wouldn't be so bad if Wind was perfect - but it does have flaws - which have been outlined already.

It does have a place in our electricity supply - but we need (short term) to find solutions to the planning issues that cause community concerns - and (long term) work to improve the technology.

Such as - you yourself - alluded to earlier - working to improve the performance of turbines in low winds

Every energy technology has it's flaws. That doesn't change the fact we have to move to a near decarbonised energy system as fast as possible.

Totally agree on planning and community concerns.

Old diesel · 31-05-2014 2:29pm

Macha wrote: »

Every energy technology has it's flaws. That doesn't change the fact we have to move to a near decarbonised energy system as fast as possible.

Totally agree on planning and community concerns.

Your right every energy technology has its flaws - hence why ALL of them need continuous improvement and development.

Who knows - maybe in 20/30 years time - we may be having a thread saying how amazing wind is - due to improvements that were made

Macha · 31-05-2014 2:40pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Your right every energy technology has its flaws - hence why ALL of them need continuous improvement and development.

Who knows - maybe in 20/30 years time - we may be having a thread saying how amazing wind is - due to improvements that were made

Afraid I can't agree on improving coal or oil plants. CCS is a distraction and justification for people to keep building and running coal plants in full knowledge its never going to happen. Nuclear is sickeningly expensive (plus decommissioning plus fuel disposal costs plus liability plus...)and causes hugely expensive curtailment costs for other more flexible technologies.

Besides, the historic levels of public subsidies into R&D etc of fossil fuel and nuclear technologies would make your head spin - and put the current whinging about renewables subsidies into some well-needed perspective.

All demand side and renewable energy technologies? Sure! By the way, I think we've seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to PV developments.

ted1 · 31-05-2014 2:40pm

Aren't or coal plants used for base load and operate 24 7 using predominately Colombian coal. So cheap American coal has no effect. However shale gas has broken the traditional prince link between oil and gas, so gas is now being use over oil.

The problem with biomass is that we with still are reliant on large quantities of imports or else have to convert a large proportion of our agricultural land and thus push up grain and meat prices.

ted1 · 31-05-2014 2:45pm

Macha wrote: »

Solar panels probably convert about 20% of the sunlight into electricity: coal power probably converts about <0.001% of the original sunlight into electricity. Let's get a bit of perspective on this.

Coal doesn't use sun light, do you mean energy content?

Wind uses a minimal amount is solar radiation. The a small % of sun heats the ground and air, this causes the wind and then we harness it. So wind uses a fraction if a percent of solar

Macha · 31-05-2014 2:55pm

ted1 wrote: »

Aren't or coal plants used for base load and operate 24 7 using predominately Colombian coal. So cheap American coal has no effect. However shale gas has broken the traditional prince link between oil and gas, so gas is now being use over oil.

The problem with biomass is that we with still are reliant on large quantities of imports or else have to convert a large proportion of our agricultural land and thus push up grain and meat prices.

No, coal plants don't operate 24/7 - we have a wholesale electricity market in Ireland in which plant operators bid in to try to sell their electricity. Seriously, check out the link in my last post and you can read the European coal industry itself explaining it. And it doesn't actually matter where most of our coal comes from - my point is about the price impact of American coal bringing down wholesale electricity prices to the point that coal beats gas. And no, shale gas does not replace oil in most places because most places aren't insane enough to burn oil to generate electricity - the vast, vast majority is used in the transport sector.

If you're really interested, I suggest you read this for an snapshot overview - the Commission published one for every quarter: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/electricity/doc/20130814_q2_quarterly_report_on_european_electricity_markets.pdf Check out the part about clean dark spreads and clean spark spreads (explained in the glossary at the end).

ted1 wrote: »

Coal doesn't use sun light, do you mean energy content?

Wind uses a minimal amount is solar radiation. The a small % of sun heats the ground and air, this causes the wind and then we harness it. So wind uses a fraction if a percent of solar

Where do you think coal originally comes from?

ted1 · 31-05-2014 4:43pm

I know how the market works I bid into EDIL myself, genreally coal is the cheapest also it has a poor start up time so needs to run constantly

While source isn't relevant the type of coal is. That's why ours is sourced in Colombia

ted1 · 31-05-2014 4:56pm

Macha wrote: »

No, coal plants don't operate 24/7 - we have a wholesale electricity market in Ireland in which plant operators bid in to try to sell their electricity. Seriously, check out the link in my last post and you can read the European coal industry itself explaining it. And it doesn't actually matter where most of our coal comes from - my point is about the price impact of American coal bringing down wholesale electricity prices to the point that coal beats gas. And no, shale gas does not replace oil in most places because most places aren't insane enough to burn oil to generate electricity - the vast, vast majority is used in the transport sector.

If you're really interested, I suggest you read this for an snapshot overview - the Commission published one for every quarter: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/electricity/doc/20130814_q2_quarterly_report_on_european_electricity_markets.pdf Check out the part about clean dark spreads and clean spark spreads (explained in the glossary at the end).

Where do you think coal originally comes from?

I never said shale gas replaced oil, I said it breaks the traditional link in prices.
There are still several oil plants in Ireland

Macha · 31-05-2014 4:58pm

ted1 wrote: »

I know how the market works I bid into EDIL myself, genreally coal is the cheapest also it has a poor start up time so needs to run constantly

Given the marginal costs, I would be surprised if wind weren't the cheapest when it's available. Coal is inflexible which means it might bid in at a price lower than covers its costs for that unit of electricity but then it must be betting that the final bid will be high enough to cover its marginal costs otherwise in the long run, it'll be unprofitable.

ted1 · 31-05-2014 5:03pm

Macha wrote: »

Given the marginal costs, I would be surprised if wind weren't the cheapest when it's available. Coal is inflexible which means it might bid in at a price lower than covers its costs for that unit of electricity but then it must be betting that the final bid will be high enough to cover its marginal costs otherwise in the long run, it'll be unprofitable.

Wind doesn't bid into the market. Wind is automatically accepted and takes the SMP (+ what ever is needed to make up the REFIT if needed)

Macha · 31-05-2014 5:08pm

ted1 wrote: »

I never said shale gas replaced oil, I said it breaks the traditional link in prices.
There are still several oil plants in Ireland

So what exactly did you mean when you said "so gas is now being use over oil"?
Yes, I shudder when I think of our oil plants - and our peat ones.

But the pressure to move away from oil indexation in Europe hasn't come from US shale gas. Gas is still largely a regional market and US shale gas isn't exported to Europe. Instead, it's come about because of the increasing divergence between wholesale gas and oil prices. Many of the contracts were signed when oil prices were much lower and it's now cheaper to buy gas at hubs.

Macha · 31-05-2014 5:24pm

ted1 wrote: »

Wind doesn't bid into the market. Wind is automatically accepted and takes the SMP (+ what ever is needed to make up the REFIT if needed)

That's strange as my understanding is that wind does bid into the market through an electricity supplier who buys the wind output at a fixed rate and then sells it into the SEM. If the total paid doesn't reach the agreed return, the PSO levy comes into play.

So yes the wind generator themselves may not bid into the market as you describe above but the wind itself is traded. How else would wind be contributing to lower wholesale electricity prices as reported by SEAI, I wonder?

By the way - can I ask what type of electricity you bid in?

fclauson · 31-05-2014 6:00pm

My understanding (check elec regulations 1999 as amended) is that "renewable" energy has to be used first before any other - which is where the whole ramp for fossil plants comes in we spoke about earlier comes into play. The Wind Generators received a price (guaranteed in law + guaranteed even if they grid does not want the electricity for example in strong winds via constraint payments) not sure how it works after that.

The SEAI suggest the price is dropping because of wind - but you have to then look at the interconnector - the cheapest electricity I believe comes via that from the UK and if Eirgrid had its choice it would get all of it that way (but its not big enough)

There was a newspaper storey which positioned rightly or wrongly that the govt wanted the midlands wind farm to build a new interconnector so they could sell their green energy. It would be paid for by the wind generators. This would grow the IE-UK pipe and allow cheap elect to flow from UK to Ireland because the UK really did not want our wind because they had their own generation and were not so fixed to the European renewable target.

but we creep off topic slightly

ted1 · 31-05-2014 6:04pm

Macha wrote: »

That's strange as my understanding is that wind does bid into the market through an electricity supplier who buys the wind output at a fixed rate and then sells it into the SEM. If the total paid doesn't reach the agreed return, the PSO levy comes into play.

So yes the wind generator themselves may not bid into the market as you describe above but the wind itself is traded. How else would wind be contributing to lower wholesale electricity prices as reported by SEAI, I wonder?

By the way - can I ask what type of electricity you bid in?

Winds bid is zero. So it's automatically accepted. Only small wind farms can sign up to a Power Purchase Agreement. At this the purcasher still enters a zero price.

Everybody who is supplying the grid gets the same price. So if the grid needs 1GW everyone who supplies this may get 50 euro/MWH , where as if the system demand is 6GW everyone might get 350 euro/MWH
I bid in Demand Side Units, effectively we bid in what plants use above their baseload and enter at a high price, which really occurs when the system demand goes above 5.5GW. If accepted and called we shutdown the factory, or bring in their generator.
The company get a fixed price and extra for each thine that they are called. The cost to Eirgrid is Lower than it pays for BNE ( best new entrant)

Macha · 31-05-2014 6:36pm

ted1 wrote: »

Winds bid is zero. So it's automatically accepted. Only small wind farms can sign up to a Power Purchase Agreement. At this the purcasher still enters a zero price.

Everybody who is supplying the grid gets the same price. So if the grid needs 1GW everyone who supplies this may get 50 euro/MWH , where as if the system demand is 6GW everyone might get 350 euro/MWH
I bid in Demand Side Units, effectively we bid in what plants use above their baseload and enter at a high price, which really occurs when the system demand goes above 5.5GW. If accepted and called we shutdown the factory, or bring in their generator.
The company get a fixed price and extra for each thine that they are called. The cost to Eirgrid is Lower than it pays for BNE ( best new entrant)

Right that makes sense, ie that wind bids in but at zero or near zero. Hydro does the same I guess?

Thanks for the other info - it sounds like a type of balancing market you bid into?

Old diesel · 31-05-2014 7:17pm

Macha wrote: »

Afraid I can't agree on improving coal or oil plants. CCS is a distraction and justification for people to keep building and running coal plants in full knowledge its never going to happen. Nuclear is sickeningly expensive (plus decommissioning plus fuel disposal costs plus liability plus...)and causes hugely expensive curtailment costs for other more flexible technologies.

Besides, the historic levels of public subsidies into R&D etc of fossil fuel and nuclear technologies would make your head spin - and put the current whinging about renewables subsidies into some well-needed perspective.

All demand side and renewable energy technologies? Sure! By the way, I think we've seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to PV developments.

Sorry I meant renewables options

Old diesel · 31-05-2014 7:26pm

ted1 wrote: »

Aren't or coal plants used for base load and operate 24 7 using predominately Colombian coal. So cheap American coal has no effect. However shale gas has broken the traditional prince link between oil and gas, so gas is now being use over oil.

The problem with biomass is that we with still are reliant on large quantities of imports or else have to convert a large proportion of our agricultural land and thus push up grain and meat prices.

I agree with your points on the biomass - and really I would see it as a short term solution while we develop renewables in the longer term - which may include developing the sustainability of biomass or indeed improving other tech like wind

Only thing of note however - is that I think you are UNLIKELY to raise meat and grain prices just because Ireland cuts back - we are too small a player.

Bear in mind too - that with beef and dairy production in this country we export in the region of 85 percent of production.

The idea of taking land out of production to grow biomass - is definitely a very serious issue to think about - and not something to do on a whim without a lot of thought - Food security is a VERY serious issue - and likely to become more so in the common years

However - Irelands beef industry is a bit f:mad::mad:ked at the moment - and unless the industry can find a way to address the issues with prices etc - beef could be in bother in this country - which would help free up land for biomass production.

djpbarry · 02-06-2014 10:30am

Old diesel wrote: »

However - Irelands beef industry is a bit f:mad::mad:ked at the moment - and unless the industry can find a way to address the issues with prices etc - beef could be in bother in this country - which would help free up land for biomass production.

There's plenty of biomass in Ireland's various waste streams - don't really need to be growing more of it.

Wind farms - ugly truths

Comments