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

Wind farms - ugly truths

Options
1…3536384041…47

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    If somebody wanted to put a wind turbine on my head i'd let them. They get energy from the wind and look beautiful even near the gap of dunloe .:P or glendalough. they are sustainable energy sources.


  • Options
    #1113
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Our power stations run on petrol / diesel and pay retail cost ? :confused:



    http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

    You claimed that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised in this country. I pointed out this was not true and cited diesel/petrol as an example. Now your trying to muddy the waters. Can you list the subsidies that coal/oil/gas imports for energy generation get from the Irish state?? Also do you believe you can run a grid without baseload power as you seem to be suggesting in some of these posts??

    PS: I suggest you look at the map in that link of yours. It shows fossil fuels do not get any subsidies in Ireland, the EU or North America. Only a shrinking number of oil producing states subsidise fossil fuels to any extent.


  • Options
    #1114
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    In general they are - My point was that states in the US that have added siginficant amounts of wind energy to their grid have seen costs rise sharply compared to states that haven't.
    Ignoring once more that retail costs are a poor indicator, you’re saying that states that have invested in new energy infrastructure have incurred costs associated with that new infrastructure?
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Hidden subsidies?? As I stated earlier most of the cost of petrol/diesel in this country is now tax. Can you point out the "hidden subsidies" in any of that??:confused:
    _74519696_74519695.jpg

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Reneweables are predictably unreliable...
    How can something be unreliable if it is predictable?


  • Options
    #1115
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Reneweables are predictably unreliable - how is that an asset on a grid??. At the end of the day you can't run a grid without baseload, as the UK found out recently when wind/solar was producing FA at a time of peak demand. It is indeed interesting how Japan is putting many of its nukes back online after a big push with regards wind/solar. Just goes to show that reality has to be faced, something which those who push wind/solar prefer to ignore, and on the evidence of certain contribitors here, not even discussed.
    spin spin spin. of course Japan wants to the nukes on line. They have HUGE sunken costs in then.

    And I can regularly post multiple nuclear outages to show that those white elephants are predictably unreliable in the sense that it could be working fine now and then an alarm goes off and then an inspection shows it will need to stay offline for days/months/years for repairs. With wind you've no such surprises.

    You can run a grid without baseload. Our grid runs without baseload. The minimum number of generators needed during minimum demand when there is good wind is less than that needed anyway for grid stability.

    Let me say that again. Grid Stability mean we need high inertia machines distributed around the country they more than cover the 1GW minimum demand. The other 6GW of dispatchable plant is only used to supply the demand that isn't being supplied by renewables. ( subject to the current operating limits of 55% from wind + interconnectors )

    You keep saying wind is unpredictable. The forecast predicts wind for the next 400,000 seconds. If the wind drops unexpectedly then Primary Operating Reserve has to kick in within 5 seconds like it does for any other outage on the grid.


  • Options
    #1116
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    You claimed that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised in this country. I pointed out this was not true and cited diesel/petrol as an example.
    You could have pointed out the moon was made of cheese for all the relevance that retail excise duty has on power costs, especially since gas and coal are bought in advance on future contracts. The main reason electric cars are cheap to run is by avoiding that excise duty. When we get more renewables it'll be better though.


    Now your trying to muddy the waters. Can you list the subsidies that coal/oil/gas imports for energy generation get from the Irish state?? Also do you believe you can run a grid without baseload power as you seem to be suggesting in some of these posts??

    PS: I suggest you look at the map in that link of yours. It shows fossil fuels do not get any subsidies in Ireland, the EU or North America. Only a shrinking number of oil producing states subsidise fossil fuels to any extent.
    cba posting up links to the subsidies for Peat or the CHP plants , which until recently were getting more dosh than wind even though they had a fraction of the generating capacity.

    And hidden subsidies are by definition are hidden. Not paying for pollution etc. The entire fossil fuel industry is pretty much based on asset stripping the planet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Have we managed to make any inroads against my original post ?



    fclauson wrote: »
    Bn82Uq-IMAArI7i.png:large


  • Options
    #1118
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    fclauson wrote: »
    Have we managed to make any inroads against my original post ?
    Not really, because for you to concede any point would be against your religion despite the facts.



    You completely ignore the two million tonnes of coal we'd have to import to replace the power we already get from renewables.

    And then go on to argue that wind can't work ? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1119
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ignoring once more that retail costs are a poor indicator, you’re saying that states that have invested in new energy infrastructure have incurred costs associated with that new infrastructure?

    _74519696_74519695.jpg

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377

    How can something be unreliable if it is predictable?

    I see you used the IMF figure that puts a notional figure on the cost of Carbon that has no actual baring in reality. Very handy for making spurious arguments about subsidies. I guess it depends on ones definition of the word "subsidy". You argument is similar to the chap on here who recently said that the only way to make wind/solar seem like good value in this part of the world is to cripple fossil fuels with tax. So I take it your argument is that by not taxing fossil fuels to this extent this somehow amounts to a "subsidy".

    As I pointed out to your sidekick earlier the IEA data shows fossil fuels do not get subsidies in this part of the world and such subsidies now only exist in a handful of producer countries. Have a look at the map in the link below

    http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/fossilfuelsubsidydatabase/


    .


  • Options
    #1120
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    spin spin spin. of course Japan wants to the nukes on line. They have HUGE sunken costs in then.

    And I can regularly post multiple nuclear outages to show that those white elephants are predictably unreliable in the sense that it could be working fine now and then an alarm goes off and then an inspection shows it will need to stay offline for days/months/years for repairs. With wind you've no such surprises.

    You can run a grid without baseload. Our grid runs without baseload. The minimum number of generators needed during minimum demand when there is good wind is less than that needed anyway for grid stability.

    Let me say that again. Grid Stability mean we need high inertia machines distributed around the country they more than cover the 1GW minimum demand. The other 6GW of dispatchable plant is only used to supply the demand that isn't being supplied by renewables. ( subject to the current operating limits of 55% from wind + interconnectors )

    You keep saying wind is unpredictable. The forecast predicts wind for the next 400,000 seconds. If the wind drops unexpectedly then Primary Operating Reserve has to kick in within 5 seconds like it does for any other outage on the grid.

    Your utterly deluded. Both the UK and Germany depend heavily on baseload coal plants and Japan on nuclear. Thanx to the vast amount of money wasted on wind/solar many of these plants are now in a poor state of repair from lack of investment with predictable results as already discussed on here in relation to the power crunch seen on the UK grid only a few weeks ago when wind/solar was producing FA power for days on end during a period of high grid demand.And trying to equate wind energy as somehow being the equivalent as energy imports via interconnects is beyond laughable as the vast majority of the energy imported into the UK/Ireland this way is either nuclear or fossil fuel based.


  • Options
    #1121
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    You could have pointed out the moon was made of cheese for all the relevance that retail excise duty has on power costs, especially since gas and coal are bought in advance on future contracts. The main reason electric cars are cheap to run is by avoiding that excise duty. When we get more renewables it'll be better though.



    cba posting up links to the subsidies for Peat or the CHP plants , which until recently were getting more dosh than wind even though they had a fraction of the generating capacity.

    And hidden subsidies are by definition are hidden. Not paying for pollution etc. The entire fossil fuel industry is pretty much based on asset stripping the planet.

    Is there a point to that waffle??

    How about wind farm operators accounting for damage to peatlands or rare earth metal mining etc..?? It appears you have to be a blatant hypocrite to believe in wind. In any case wind does little to lessen reliance on fossil fuels as can be seen by such grids across Europe.

    And as for you claim that conventional plants offer less capacity than wind. That just shows your you complete lack of understanding of the concept of wind energy on a grid in terms of installed capacity versus actual output. After 70 odd pages of discussion in this topic here that says a lot about the total denial of reality behind your arguments on the matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

    You completely ignore the two million tonnes of coal we'd have to import to replace the power we already get from renewables.

    And then go on to argue that wind can't work ? :rolleyes:

    Can you account for this notional "2 million tonnes", what time period we are talking about, and where the savings on such imports went??. I asked one of your sidekicks a similar question here about this and still haven't got an answer to it.


  • Options
    #1123
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Your utterly deluded..... .
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Is there a point to that waffle......
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Can you account for this notional ......

    We are at 70 pages largely because some people can't/won't use Multi-Quote.....

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57847268

    Regarding the OP, there has been little to contradict FClauson that I have seen, although some of the figures and extrapolations on both sides have been fanciful and/or abstract, even occasionally absurd.

    An issue that is probably for another thread is whether our current Grid, distribution and supply models are actually sustainable in the face of the restrictions and demands that Climate Change is going to force on us.

    In a true Leinster House fashion, the gubberment have made a hames of the whole thing, letting lobby groups run amok, building willy-nilly in order to secure the best potential sites for private companies while the overall needs of the Irish public get let blowing round like an empty crisp bag on the side of the road.

    Regardless of the ugly truths, we are balls deep in it now, and exploring/exploiting smarter ways to use, distribute and store the peak energy benefits that our gusty Island provides would be a more productive use of time and resources than bickering over bats, base load and bog-lands at this juncture.

    ...IMO...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1124
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    AngryHippie wrote: »

    Regardless of the ugly truths, we are balls deep in it now, and exploring/exploiting smarter ways to use, distribute and store the peak energy benefits that our gusty Island provides would be a more productive use of time and resources than bickering over bats, base load and bog-lands at this juncture.

    ...IMO...:rolleyes:

    well said - our building lost power from storm Barney - no power for 24hrs - other than the lack of water (we have our own well) & a concern over food in the freezer - due to the thermal mass of the building and a log fire (as much for light as comfort) it was fine - if we had a small battery system to provide light, a low voltage pump for water and, of course, a way of powering the internet modem - we could have happily run on reduced power for 24hrs - but 99% of builds in Ireland could not - and still the government think Passive House is not the way to go


  • Options
    #1125
    OssianSmyth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭OssianSmyth


    I'm going to look at three ideas put forward by fclauson

    That wind power adds to the cost of national infrastructure because we still need backup for when the wind blows.
    Wind does increase the capital cost of power generation but it reduces the future running costs by cutting fossil fuel imports.

    That electricity generated by a wind farm doesn't match 1:1 against emissions reduction because of having to constantly adjust power stations to match changing output
    This is also true but the cycling of power stations takes away only 1% of the emissions savings by the wind farm.
    The UK National Grid wrote a report on exactly this when asked what was the effect on emissions of cycoling power stations.
    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/NATIONAL_GRID.pdf

    That we have to pay for wind when we don't need it though constraint payments.
    Again this is true but the amount is not a great as you might think. In 2013, Eirgrid reported that it could not use about 3.5% of the power it bought from wind farms.
    http://www.interconnector.ie/site-files/library/EirGrid/Annual_Wind_Constraint_and_Curtailment_Report_2013_Non_Technical_Summary.pdf

    Against the downsides of wind, there are also downsides to fossil fuel power. Wind may be continuously variable with the weather, but then so is the price of oil and gas. Worse still, we may lose supply altogether if we cannot maintain peace in the middle east or good relations with Russia. Then there is the air pollution and the consequent premature deaths and finally the addition to global warming.

    As fclauson knows, it's more cost effective to insulate homes than build a wind farm. However we still need clean sources of electrical power. In future, transport and home heating will rely far more on electricity so even if reduce our national energy demand, we may need to increase our electrical generation capacity.

    Passive House will be mandatory for all new builds in my local authority (Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown) starting in 2016. I expect that the other Dublin local authorities will follow suit. Low carbon cement will be required for construction.


  • Options
    #1126
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I see you used the IMF figure that puts a notional figure on the cost of Carbon that has no actual baring in reality.
    It also includes tax reliefs. For example, in the US:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_5572346.html
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Thanx to the vast amount of money wasted on wind/solar many of these plants are now in a poor state of repair from lack of investment with predictable results as already discussed on here in relation to the power crunch seen on the UK grid only a few weeks ago when wind/solar was producing FA power for days on end during a period of high grid demand.
    Why do you keep overlooking the fact that the UK is investing vast sums in nuclear?
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    In any case wind does little to lessen reliance on fossil fuels as can be seen by such grids across Europe.
    It’s already been pointed out numerous times that wind significantly reduces fuel consumption, yet you keep denying that to be the case?


  • Options
    #1127
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Your utterly deluded. Both the UK and Germany depend heavily on baseload coal plants and Japan on nuclear.
    We all know that Japan had no nuclear power for years.


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    How about wind farm operators accounting for damage to peatlands or rare earth metal mining etc..??
    Renewables are getting cheaper because of the learning curve, and that also means that environmental impacts are being lessened because of said learning curve.
    And as for you claim that conventional plants offer less capacity than wind.
    :confused:
    The oft quoted figure for wind is 30% of nameplate.

    Back in 2013 The Single Electricity Market had 33TWh annual generation from 11 GW Registered Capacity. Which works out at an average of 34% and that includes the high uptimes of the high inertia generators used to provide frequency stability and the peat stations.

    So it turns out that yeah wind almost certainly beats a lot of peaking plant in annual capacity factor.

    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Can you account for this notional "2 million tonnes", what time period we are talking about, and where the savings on such imports went??.
    It's the annual amount of coal used by Moneypoint to supply less power than renewables currently supply.


  • Options
    #1128
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    OssianSmyth wrote: »
    I'm going to look at three ideas put forward by fclauson

    That wind power adds to the cost of national infrastructure because we still need backup for when the wind blows.
    Wind does increase the capital cost of power generation but it reduces the future running costs by cutting fossil fuel imports.

    .

    Can you give an example of where this has actually happened in a modern industrialized country??


  • Options
    #1129
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It also includes tax reliefs. For example, in the US:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_5572346.html
    ?
    It’s already been pointed out numerous times that wind significantly reduces fuel consumption, yet you keep denying that to be the case?

    All companies pay less tax when their profits drop. If that's your definition of a "subsidy" then pretty much every company in the world gets "subsidies". The writer of that piece would want to learn some basic economics.


    PS: I've asked several times now for the fan boys of wind developers to account for these so called "savings" on fuel consumption in terms of energy costs etc. in this country. I've yet to get any credible answer on the subject after nearly 80 pages.


  • Options
    #1130
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    .

    Back in 2013 The Single Electricity Market had 33TWh annual generation from 11 GW Registered Capacity. Which works out at an average of 34% and that includes the high uptimes of the high inertia generators used to provide frequency stability and the peat stations.

    So it turns out that yeah wind almost certainly beats a lot of peaking plant in annual capacity factor.


    It's the annual amount of coal used by Moneypoint to supply less power than renewables currently supply.

    You remind me of the spin merchants from the IWEA who love putting up figures for windy nights on there social media pages followed by silence for weeks on end when the wind isn't playing ball:rolleyes:. The facts are that wind output varies enormously from year to year and is least reliable in cold years like 2010 when the actual output was a mere 23% of installed capacity and energy demand significantly higher compared to mild years. Same pattern across Europe when you look at grids like Germany who relie even more heavily on coal during cold winters. No wonder their emissions spike substantially during those years.

    PS: Can you clarify your statement on Moneypoint?? It reads to me like your claiming since wind generates energy at certain times it is the exact equivalent of a reduction in coal usage. The fact that moneypoint is a standby baseload power source suggests that assumption is way off to say the least!!!


  • Options
    #1131
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,640 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/24/chinas-dirtiest-city-cant-clear-the-air?videoId=366435392&videoChannel=118169&channelName=Editors%27+Picks#MZM7BDgoDqtmGEPD.97

    Getting back to the OP's - some more ugly truths

    It sums up the "out of sight, out of mind" approach of those who pedal the green energy = wind myth


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Can you give an example of where this has actually happened in a modern industrialized country??

    The clue is in the word future.
    All companies pay less tax when their profits drop. If that's your definition of a "subsidy" then pretty much every company in the world gets "subsidies". The writer of that piece would want to learn some basic economics.

    I think you need to look a little closer at that article, and the implications of it.
    Grants, subsidies and incentives are still being given to construct, fuel, decommission and clean-up conventional thermal fossil fuel plants.
    A tax break is an incentive, "subsidy" may be an inaccurate choice of words, but the effect is the same.
    As long as this incentive exists, whether it is tax-break based, or direct subsidy based is irrelevant. Once it exists, it acts as a disincentive for renewable energy development. That is the point of the article. Have a read of "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein if you want a few really good chapters on how screwed up US Federal spending/funding/tax is in relation to the notional policy of renewable energy.

    Either way, I still believe wind is part of the solution, as is solar, geothermal, tidal and biomass. None of them is a stand-alone solution due to the varying outputs. Together, there is no reason why a country the size of Ireland could not put together a renewable electrification plan than could use a combined approach and a smart grid to ensure energy security into the future. If only the Gubberment would actually step in and make it a high priority.

    Sure Ireland has more pressing humanitarian issues like poverty, health & education, but as long as our energy supply is subject to the whims of Sheiks and Texan Oil barons, the best laid plans and budgets have the potential to end up on the scrap-heap. Spend the time and money to put a comprehensive 20 year plan in place, safeguard it from administration change and every future budget will benefit from the investment.

    However as FClauson has already pointed out, a large part of the problem is our out-dated housing stock, which is dire need of upgrade, why not include this as part of the 20 year strategy ?

    The electoral cycle has done a massive dis-service to the people of Ireland in this regard, with the continual changes in administrations completely failing to address the looming problems in favor of securing enough votes to keep leather under there arses. But I suppose that is far enough off topic for now.
    PS: I've asked several times now for the fan boys of wind developers to account for these so called "savings" on fuel consumption in terms of energy costs etc. in this country. I've yet to get any credible answer on the subject after nearly 80 pages.

    It is not all about current energy costs.
    Every time you bring this point up you fail to acknowledge that there have been savings in inputs and correspondingly in CO2 outputs.
    Fossil Fuels are a finite resource, by definition as supply diminishes, cost is going to go up:
    Has that happened yet- occasionally.
    Will this happen in the future - Definitely
    Will this drive up costs - Definitely

    You seem to be basing all of your points on the status quo being sustainable.
    It most definitely isn't.

    Also - Polite request for the sake of sanity, can you please use Multi-quote and post one response at a time ? It just seems like you are trying to carpet-bomb the thread with one-line responses that blithely ignore the true complexities of the points you are trying to respond to.
    It makes for very hard work as the thread goes on.


  • Options
    #1133
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    We all know that Japan had no nuclear power for years.

    This may be wrong but Japan has nuclear


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan


  • Options
    #1134
    OssianSmyth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭OssianSmyth


    Here's some data to show how Ireland's power generation sectors has been decarbonising in the past 15 yrs.

    2000
    Electricity generation: 24 Terawatt-hours, power gen emissions: 16.24 Mt
    Power generation carbon intensity: 676 Kt/TWh

    2013
    Electricity generation: 25.3 Terawatt-hours, power gen emissions: 11.32 Mt
    Power generation carbon intensity: 447 Kt/TWh

    Wind Power is at 20% now and the next 20% is mostly contracted, planning approved, finance in place. We need now to diversify into things like heat pumps and domestic solar.

    Sources:
    EPA, BP


  • Options
    #1135
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The fact that moneypoint is a standby baseload power source suggests that assumption is way off to say the least!!!
    So which is it , Standby or Baseload ?

    They are very, very different.

    And that after you've already had my opinion that it's actually a third option.


  • Options
    #1136
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    fclauson wrote: »
    This may be wrong but Japan has nuclear
    I said HAD you say has.

    Please learn to verb

    Please also accept that while Japan has some of it's nukes online now that for YEARS they had NO nuclear power. Thus proving that they didn't actually need to rely on the stuff.

    Also my point on sunken costs still counts. Nuclear might be cheap to run (with Hollywood accounting) but the capital costs are Godzilla scale gynormous.


  • Options
    #1137
    Jim Martin
    Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Jim Martin


    fclauson wrote: »
    Bn82Uq-IMAArI7i.png:large

    Just noticed this from your 1st post - is this still the case? (Your house rating)


  • Options
    #1138
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    All companies pay less tax when their profits drop. If that's your definition of a "subsidy" then pretty much every company in the world gets "subsidies". The writer of that piece would want to learn some basic economics.
    I think you need to look up the meaning of the term “tax break”.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    PS: I've asked several times now for the fan boys of wind developers to account for these so called "savings" on fuel consumption in terms of energy costs etc. in this country. I've yet to get any credible answer on the subject after nearly 80 pages.
    Yes you have, on more than one occasion. Here’s another one that I have absolutely no doubt you will also dismiss:
    A dispatch model is applied to ex-post data for the 2012 All Island system in Ireland. Renewable electricity accounted for 20.4% of total generation, 15.8% from wind. The results show renewable generation averted a 26% increase in fossil fuels (valued at €297 million) and avoided an 18% increase in CO2 emissions (2.85 MtCO2), as compared to the simulated 2012 system without renewable generation. Wind averted 20% increase in fossil fuel generation and a 14% increase in CO2 emissions (2.33 MtCO2). Each MWh of renewable electricity avoided on average 0.43 tCO2 with wind avoiding 0.46 tCO2/MWh. Additional renewable related balancing requirements had minor impacts on fossil fuel generation efficiency; CO2 production rates increased by <2%.
    https://www.esri.ie/publications/fossil-fuel-and-co2-emissions-savings-on-a-high-renewable-electricity-system-a-single-year-case-study-for-ireland/
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The facts are that wind output varies enormously from year to year and is least reliable in cold years like 2010 when the actual output was a mere 23% of installed capacity and energy demand significantly higher compared to mild years
    Actually it was closer to 24% in 2010, but that was an exceptionally low year. The average from 2002 – 2013 was 31.3 ± 3% (source).
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/24/chinas-dirtiest-city-cant-clear-the-air?videoId=366435392&videoChannel=118169&channelName=Editors%27+Picks#MZM7BDgoDqtmGEPD.97

    Getting back to the OP's - some more ugly truths
    Specifically?


  • Options
    #1139
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Its not wrong , japan has had nuclear for decades...
    But it all got switched off after fucashima.... only recently started some up again.
    Had to turn them off again in a hurry.

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #1140
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Its not wrong , japan has had nuclear for decades...
    But it all got switched off after fucashima.... only recently started some up again.
    Had to turn them off again in a hurry.
    The fact still remains that they survived without them for years. And even now out of 50+ reactors only two are back on line.

    Japan’s nuclear generating capacity factor in October was 2.7 percent, up from 2.2 percent in September. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/
    Capacity (IEA figures) at end of 2012 was 295 GWe, this being 46 GWe nuclear, 45 GWe hydro, 36 GWe coal, 47 GWe gas, 41 GWe oil, 16 GWe oil or coal, 50.6 GWe autoproducers’ ‘combustible fuels’, 6.6 GWe solar, 2.5 GWe wind and 0.5 GWe geothermal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Jim Martin wrote: »
    Just noticed this from your 1st post - is this still the case? (Your house rating)

    off topic -
    but think the "only" will soon have to be changed to the "first"
    €150/annum heating bill


Advertisement