Wind farms - ugly truths

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The storm of objections has pretty much been ridden enough to ensure Ireland meets its targets.

It can be done, but for such a humongous step to be taken, information and communication need to be honest and comprehensive.
People are not idiots.

If there is a possibility that one nuclear station may make a massive difference to the lives of people in Ireland, and everyone is adequately informed, I think people will give it due consideration.

I hate the way it is always established as a given in Ireland that people are idiots who will reject any new proposition outright, or who will not have the capacity to understand a complex situation.

It happens in the medical system all the time, it happens in the case of abortion at the moment, gay marriage, you name it.
Fob off people with misinformation or lack of information, let a select few take decisions for them, much easier. It drives me mad.

So you'd be alright with a reactor in your area ? And the vast number of new transmission lines (pylons) that brings-
Fair enough, most people cant even stand the look of a few wind turbines !
Apart from the economics of nuclear power-

Markcheese wrote: »

So you'd be alright with a reactor in your area ? And the vast number of new transmission lines (pylons) that brings-
Fair enough, most people cant even stand the look of a few wind turbines !
Apart from the economics of nuclear power-

I posted in another thread a photo taken from my mother's flat, back in France, with a view onto the Cruas power plant.
No, I wouldn't have a problem living near one.

If one power plant in one spot meant that the rest of the countryside is spared from scaring with turbines etc... and that people are getting reliable power, for cheap, then yes, I think it would be worth me sacrificing my surroundings to a reasonable extent.

It is true there are many high tension lines coming with a plant, but these would be present with dozens of wind farms, smaller scale ones, but in a greater number.

My point is that if you explain to someone that there is a possibility their immediate surroundings might be spoiled, but everyone benefits from it to a great extent, they will probably accept the inconvenience.

With wind turbines, the inconvenience and visual pollution are high, and there needs to be many such outfits for it to be meaningful, while the benefit goes mostly to one person.

Greater and more frequent inconvenience, for the benefit mostly of one developer.

The inconvenience of one power plant would benefit the entire population.
It's a much stronger argument in my opinion.

There must be some suitable site in Ireland that would cause the least objections. Ireland is tiny, but there are still fairly unpopulated spots. Look at the Cruas one, it's across the river, on a bank that is less populated, on the site of an old quarry (i think they still quarry some bit). The closest people are those on the opposite bank.
It's big when you pass by it, but not really any more than other types of infrastructure like refineries, etc...

My sister lives around 8/9 km as the crow flies, don't think it's an issue for anyone around there, yes there is a risk but they don't think about it all the time. There are rarely any scares, technical glitches or accidents the odd time, but nothing that warrants general worry.

They did have a drone flying over the station recently, along with lots other power plants in France... That's a bit more worrisome, the terror threat is an issue in France alright.
Less of that type of concern here thankfully.

Downstream, to put the extra heat/steam to good use, they built a crocodile farm, great spot, warm, humid and snug courtesy of the PP. And the crocs don't glow, I can vouch for that.

Interesting item on ClareFM about bio-mass generation at Moneypoint!

http://www.clare.fm/news

Birdnuts wrote: »

That power is still on standby so that statement holds very little water.

Are you suggesting that the fossil fuels that would have been required to produce the ~20% of electricity produced by renewables were consumed by generators on standby? Because that’s patent nonsense.

quentingargan wrote: »

It is perhaps unfortunate that we have such reliance on wind as a renewable. If this was mixed with more solar, there would be a synergy which should see some mothballing of the higher CO2 stations.

Other measures on the demand side management would also help. Smart meters and smart devices such as dishwashers and washing machines that come on when the wholesale price is low would also need to be part of a strategy.

Wind turbines alone will not enable us to mothball stations, but you they reduce the run time of other fossil fuel stations. A mix of solar and wind would have a far greater effect.

The possibilities of solar are beginning to be recognised, but unfortunately, to my mind, there are lobbies trying to push this in the direction of solar parks rather than the model of industrial / domestic rooftop and self-consumption. Utility companies would like this because their business model is running a grid and producing power at one end to sell at the other. Self consumption must be anathema to them. But solar parks to my mind are a totally unnecessary blight on the landscape. There's a thread on that here.

I'm just back from France, where the Casino chain of supermarkets has installed PV on top of many car parks (awnings for shade !), and more panels on larger supermarkets' roofs.
On a cloudy sunshine day the car park section was producing more than 1190kW (at the moment I checked).
They are also making small changes within the shops, and every refrigerated section has doors , even cheese, yoghurts, ham...
They are hoping that overall they will save the equivalent of one shop's energy requirements yearly, and have a contract to sell energy to EDF for 20 years. In 2014 they had 70MW installed.
A very low impact on society way to help lower emissions.

The area where I was relies on hydro generated power, and wind farms, and incidentally I noticed a lot more pylons and lines than near Cruas. Could be just a perception though.

It's time to expand solar use in Ireland too.

fclauson wrote: »

Solar does not work at night so it resolves none of the issue of providing back up.

Peak demand is often evening time - after dark in the winter

Worst case is during a cold high pressure system when there is low wind speeds too

I think this is where demand side management could kick in. Electricity should cost far more between 5.00pm and 6.00pm during this peak. That would stop people using dishwashers, washing machines etc. At present, there is no difference in the price of electricity at 5.00pm or 11.00pm, and no incentive to reduce consumption during that peak.

Most consumers in Ireland don't even have day/night meters.

fclauson wrote: »

I thought better of you - spinning reserve has to be kept at a stage that if its suddenly hit with a massive load it does not falter. That was certainly the case when something like Moneypoint at 450Mw could drop off line without notice - the spinning reserve had to cover the sudden drop with out missing much (sub second) a heart beat.

For wind I have failed to find much info - obviously the good Lord does not suddenly stop all wind in one go so they have to work on a % of the predictive model (i.e. say predictions from wind is 100 with a margin of error in the model of 10% then 10+ would be the spinning reserve requirement in case the 10% margin manifested itself)

And I suspect the margin varies based on what type of weather system is about i.e. frontal weather vs high pressure etc

What is not clear is what margin is used by the ESB?

But back to my original post - with limited interconneciton Ireland has to maintain all of its dispatchable plant for days like earlier this year when there was 16Mw from the entire Irish wind fleet.

The question is where is the point of economics of renewable vs other technologies vs reduction in demand (as I have said before we heat out house for €150/annum)

Wind alone is not the solution as Quentin mentions

Unless it's suddenly lost 450Mw into the ether (which with our weather I suppose is quite possible!), Moneypoint is 900Mw!

Markcheese wrote: »

So you'd be alright with a reactor in your area ? And the vast number of new transmission lines (pylons) that brings-
Fair enough, most people cant even stand the look of a few wind turbines !

Which is more visually intrusive, from a distance?

Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant?


Or a wind farm on a mountain top?


The photographer of the wind farm was much further away than the photographer of Cattenom.

Don't forget also that wind farms take up much more land to produce a certain amount of power than nuclear power plants.


Don't forget also that you have to bring massive power transmission infrastructure to all the places you build wind farms, which would have to be pretty much everywhere.

If I had the choice to be 1 mile from a well built, well run nuclear power plant and surrounded by 250,000 acres of windmills (and the associated transmission lines) I'd take the nuclear every single day of the week and so would any sane person on the planet.

But please, regale us with tales of how nuclear plants are visually intrusive while renewables aren't :rolleyes:

Apart from the economics of nuclear power-

The French have the greatest proportion of non-fossil electricity in the world, and one of the cheapest electricity prices in Europe. Ireland now has the third most expensive electricity in Europe, behind other renewables leaders Germany and Denmark. We're also hopelessly dependent on gas, coal and peat.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out which model makes the most sense.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The windfarms look beautiful. France has a huge nuclear industry.

Well, good for you, because as markcheese admitted, most people think windfarms look abominable.

And people are not really concerned with the beauty or not of nuclear plants.

No, but they definitely are with wind turbines, and that's important. Because by saying no to nuclear and yes to renewables, you're not only accepting massive instability (because the plants produce power ONLY when nature wants them to, full stop) but you're also rejecting a land take of hundreds of acres for nuclear power plants but embracing a land take of hundreds of thousands of acres for renewables.

That means wind farms everywhere. Again, this is all ignoring that they only produce when the wind is blowing and will need to be backed up by something else anyway.

Great photos - what would the result be if they were taken the other way round ? ( the sun is behind the nuclear plant so it's kind of in silouete - the sun is facing the the wind turbines so they kind of shine - )

Aside from that-the wind farms have a base of a few square meters if concrete,and after 20/25 years they can easily be removed and recycled-or refurbished .
40 plus years down the line it won't be so easy with the nuclear station -

Markcheese wrote: »

40 plus years down the line it won't be so easy with the nuclear station -

How many conventional plants have been shut around Europe on the back of wind/solar energy?? Germany now depends heavily on coal to keep the lights on despite the massive spend on wind/solar. Highlighting the stupidity of ditching Nuclear

SeanW wrote: »

Which is more visually intrusive, from a distance?


Don't forget also that wind farms take up much more land to produce a certain amount of power than nuclear power plants.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out which model makes the most sense.

Don't forget that we still haven't figured out a way to safely dispose of the waste from nuclear power plants.
Casting them in glass and burying them is our best solution to date, which leaves behind a deadly underground legacy for future generations that we hope they will have the time, money and know-how to deal with.
Aside from the fact that Nobody (Race, creed, country, culture, locality etc.) wants to be anywhere near nuclear waste, it is toxic and unsafe.

Nuclear power plants also require very specific geographical locations (available land, abundant water supply, isolation and clearance distances from populated areas, good transport and energy network infrastructure, wind farms need....wind everything else they need can be done with conventional technology and infrastructure.

After decades of choosing options that make the future predicament worse, I think its about time as a species we took some responsibility for the planet. Windmills and solar farms are largely removable and recyclable aside from the footings and piles we found them on. which makes them much more sustainable for the long term.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out which model makes the least sense.

Key to the whole discussion is putting renewables in context, it suits coastal areas with prevailing winds. Thats where they belong, there is no point putting them in rainforests. Solar farms belong in the tropics, or areas that have reasonably high levels of direct sunlight. The areas that have these attributes should be the development grounds for renewables, not areas that are borderline. National interests need to be put aside in the long term in order to address global energy needs and sources.

But it will never happen. corporate interests, greed and corruption will keep the handbrake on until its too late.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Germany is phasing out coal.

Most of the older 25% efficient plants have been shutdown. The newer ones are working at 45% or so. So more power for less fuel and less CO2 .

The real casualties from renewables have been pumped storage plants because renewables have reduced number of days they could command a price premium.

Not true - German emmissions rose steadily between 2009-13. Dropped slightly last year on the back of a very mild winter. Coal is still the major power source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transition_in_Germany#/media/File:Germany-energy-mix.png

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I've posted before on this.

France is just luckier.

Well thats me convinced. How about the Czechs, Finnish,Chinese, Indians etc?? Can you provide a body count for these countries??:rolleyes: