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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Wind farms - ugly truths

13567…28

Comments

  • #102
    yellowlabrador
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭yellowlabrador


    I suggest everyone visit a power station and the control room. You can then learn how electricity is supplied and keeps the country running. Certain energy streams get prioritized according to cost and demand spikes. All systems have benefits and disadvantages. The art is to switch between the different sources according to demand predictions, like the famous' let's all put the kettle on after coronation street.
    The real answer is for us all to become more energy efficient and find ways to reduce our demand.


  • #103
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    More Stats

    16 May 01 45 am Demand 2812 MW Wind output 94 MW

    16 May 02 45 am Demand 2703 MW Wind output 169 MW

    I can produce lots more - its just very time consuming to type them all out ACCUATELY


  • #104
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    yellowlabrador wrote: »
    I suggest everyone visit a power station and the control room. You can then learn how electricity is supplied and keeps the country running. Certain energy streams get prioritized according to cost and demand spikes. All systems have benefits and disadvantages. The art is to switch between the different sources according to demand predictions, like the famous' let's all put the kettle on after coronation street.
    The real answer is for us all to become more energy efficient and find ways to reduce our demand.

    Good points

    Which raises the obvious question - why plan to be aiming for 40 percent electricity demand from a resource like wind which is intermittent???


  • #105
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    No one has answered the elephants in the room - and the reason for my original post
    when the wind drops where does the power come from
    Any other source you like: coal, gas, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, solar, etc.

    I don’t understand why people keep asking this question?
    fclauson wrote: »
    which power stations have been decommissioned as a result of wind energy
    I doubt any have. Why would they be?
    fclauson wrote: »
    the biggest elephant (which no one seems to be able to provide me with data on) how much C02 is saved by wind farms…
    Once again, you’re not looking very hard. This is taken from Eirgrid's Annual Renewables Report for 2013 (Section 3.4):
    The data for 2011 shows an 11 percent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions in the power generation sector in Ireland.

    …

    EirGrid estimates that meeting the 40% renewable electricity targets in Ireland will reduce the CO2 intensity of emissions in the electricity sector from 489g/kWh in 2011 to 300 g/kWh in 2020, epresenting a drop of 38%.


  • #106
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Any other source you like: coal, gas, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, solar, etc.

    I don’t understand why people keep asking this question?
    I doubt any have. Why would they be?
    Once again, you’re not looking very hard. This is taken from Eirgrid's Annual Renewables Report for 2013 (Section 3.4):

    The reason what happens when the wind drops is a big issue is simple - for me - we are going to be using this wind technology for 40 percent of power.

    Using intermittent sources makes it harder to hit 40 percent - imo.

    If other power sources can't be shut down as a result of 40 percent of power coming from wind - doesn't this reinforce the flaws of wind power???

    The problem with wind - isn't that its wind power - its that in my book too many people ASSUME wind is perfect and can't/won't be improved.

    Wind is clearly here for the short term - but it NEEDS to improve - or we need to develop better alternatives.


  • #107
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Any other source you like: coal, gas, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, solar, etc.
    thanks you - so wind is an add on cost not a replacement cost
    I don’t understand why people keep asking this question?
    thank you again - the wind industry has us believe that they have the answer - so again we are doubling up on infrastructure
    I doubt any have. Why would they be?
    again - money - we are doubling up again on infrastructure which is only used some of the time
    Once again, you’re not looking very hard. This is taken from Eirgrid's Annual Renewables Report for 2013 (Section 3.4):
    Sorry - I missed that - its not peer reviewed and hence probably is spooked in the favour of EIRGRID's!!

    In any event its using the SEAI/EPA model which ignores spinning reserve (see my previous post where they admit this) and only looks at delivered (and not dispatchable) energy


  • #108
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    thanks you - so wind is an add on cost not a replacement cost
    Not really. Electricity derived from wind is electricity that doesn't have to be derived from, say, oil. That represents a saving in fuel consumption.
    fclauson wrote: »
    thank you again - the wind industry has us believe that they have the answer...
    People keep referring to "the answer"? What was "the question"?
    fclauson wrote: »
    again - money
    Wasting money, you mean? What's the point in decommissioning a power plant before it has reached the end of it's lifetime? Wouldn't that represent a massive waste of resources?
    fclauson wrote: »
    Sorry - I missed that - its not peer reviewed and hence probably is spooked in the favour of EIRGRID's!!
    But it's ok for you to use Eirgrid reports in support of your own arguments?
    fclauson wrote: »
    In any event its using the SEAI/EPA model which ignores spinning reserve (see my previous post where they admit this)...
    You mean your previous post where you claimed this?


  • #109
    yellowlabrador
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭yellowlabrador


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Good points

    Which raises the obvious question - why plan to be aiming for 40 percent electricity demand from a resource like wind which is intermittent???

    That is just the point. A coal or peat powered station needs a long lead in time to run to capacity. The power it produces isn't instant. Gas or oil is. They keep the turbines idling and when extra electricity is needed, it's just the flick of a switch. It's a good idea to use windpower first and use the others to top up. Until we find a viable way of storing electricity, this is the way it will be. There's an interesting project at Nottingham university were they convert the wind power to air pumped into bladders


    We also need to consider if fossil fuels could be better used in providing some of our other needs, like heating. It is a finite resource and as Ukraine proves, not a guaranteed one.

    A pan european network with a variety of different energy provision is a better solution.


  • #110
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not really. Electricity derived from wind is electricity that doesn't have to be derived from, say, oil. That represents a saving in fuel consumption.
    that's assuming they throttled back the plant when wind was available - but we don't know that. Actually from my previous quote from SEAI they might well not as they still have to cover for the largest thermal unit on the grid. If they do then the plant will need to ramp when needed - we all know accelerating fast uses much more fuel than steady state.

    We are missing the data behind this behaviour and we are both guessing as to its effect - your say it saves fuel - I say it might but it might not.

    But one thing is for sure its not a 1 for 1 match wind Mw vs fuel Mw - and hence claims by the wind industry of massive savings might not be disclosing the whole truth. If its not a 1 for 1 match then what is it ?
    1 to .95
    1 to .75
    1 to .5
    1 to .4
    1 to .2
    who knows
    Wasting money, you mean? What's the point in decommissioning a power plant before it has reached the end of it's lifetime? Wouldn't that represent a massive waste of resources?
    so why bring masses of wind on line when a plant has not reached the end of its life. In any event as we have both agreed you will still need that plant for when the wind does not blow - so back to my argument we are adding costs and infrastructure and are unable to decommission any of what is there already. When it does reach end of life we will have to build to replace it as wind does not blow all the time. Interconnectors are not relied upon for baseload backup.
    But it's ok for you to use Eirgrid reports in support of your own arguments?
    you told me not to use a report - then you did - then I did - then you told me not too - mr confused at this end.
    You mean your previous post where you claimed this
    claimed - no quoted from

    Kevin O'Rourke
    Head, Low Carbon Technologies
    Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI)
    Wilton Park House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2.

    of course he works for an agency which likes to talk up renewables (but then admits they have no published data or model on the effect of cycling a plant has on C02 or how far Eirgrid actually run plants down when the wind blows nor the maintenance costs associated with cycling plants more often than we used to nor on how far they have to pre-empt the wind prediction in case its wrong and the wind drops earlier than predicted)

    Too many variable for my liking


  • #111
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Once again, you’re not looking very hard. This is taken from Eirgrid's Annual Renewables Report for 2013 (Section 3.4):

    Not worth the paper its written on given the variability of wind. As Diesel has pointed out theres many a day when wind produces little or nothing in terms of power and covering the country in ever more windfarms and pylons won't change that fact as countries like Germany are finding out to their cost with rising retail power prices and emmissions


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    that's assuming they throttled back the plant when wind was available - but we don't know that.
    Don’t we? I think you need to take another look at that report you linked to earlier:
    http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_and_Fuel_Mix_Report_Summary_2013.pdf
    fclauson wrote: »
    When it does reach end of life we will have to build to replace it as wind does not blow all the time.
    But it can be replaced with more efficient, more flexible base load generators.
    fclauson wrote: »
    you told me not to use a report
    No I didn’t?
    fclauson wrote: »
    claimed - no quoted from
    No, claimed. Unless you can provide a link to a quote, it’s just an unsupported claim.


  • #113
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Not worth the paper its written on given the variability of wind.
    Meaning what exactly? Generating electricity with wind turbines does not reduce CO2 emissions? Because data from Eirgrid’s website suggests otherwise. Here’s a plot of wind generation versus CO2 intensity for April 2014 – maximum wind generation results in a decrease of approximately 40% in carbon dioxide emissions per kWh of electricity produced:

    Wind_Generation_01052014_24052014.png

    Wind generation data is available here, CO2 intensity data here.


  • #114
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Meaning what exactly? Generating electricity with wind turbines does not reduce CO2 emissions? Because data from Eirgrid’s website suggests otherwise. Here’s a plot of wind generation versus CO2 intensity for April 2014 – maximum wind generation results in a decrease of approximately 40% in carbon dioxide emissions per kWh of electricity produced:

    Wind_Generation_01052014_24052014.png

    Wind generation data is available here, CO2 intensity data here.

    Maxium wind generation?? - a very rare event due to the variable nature of wind. The reality averged out over a year is far less impressive(low single figures). SEAI figures make no mention of the issue of spinning reserves etc. eitheir

    http://www.windawareireland.com/economic-issues/co2-emissions-ireland/

    The facts are that wind is a very expensive and inefficient method of reducing emmissions and this has been the experience across the EU.


  • #115
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Maxium wind generation?? - a very rare event due to the variable nature of wind.
    Way to totally miss the point.

    The data shows that as wind generation increases, CO2 intensity drops considerably.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    SEAI figures make no mention of the issue of spinning reserves etc. eitheir
    The data I used is taken from Eigrid's website - they're fudging their data too, are they?
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    http://www.windawareireland.com/economic-issues/co2-emissions-ireland/

    The facts are that wind is a very expensive and inefficient method of reducing emmissions and this has been the experience across the EU.
    That article cites this study to support it's central claim (When CO2 savings are calculated properly by including the fuel used by “Spinning Reserve”, it is found that the savings can fall to approximately one quarter of those claimed), but, ignoring for a moment that the methodology used therein is nonsense, there is absolutely no mention of spinning reserve. Wind Aware appear to be plucking figures out of thin air.


  • #116
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Don’t we? I think you need to take another look at that report you linked to earlier:
    http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_and_Fuel_Mix_Report_Summary_2013.pdf
    do you remember your post #30 - don't trust them
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90481418&postcount=30

    But it can be replaced with more efficient, more flexible base load generators.
    yes - but you still need it - so double costs with double infrastructure still needed
    No I didn’t?
    see your own quote #30
    No, claimed. Unless you can provide a link to a quote, it’s just an unsupported claim.
    I had a personal interaction with him. I would suggest you write to get you own clear opinion from him
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Meaning what exactly? Generating electricity with wind turbines does not reduce CO2 emissions? Because data from Eirgrid’s website suggests otherwise. Here’s a plot of wind generation versus CO2 intensity for April 2014 – maximum wind generation results in a decrease of approximately 40% in carbon dioxide emissions per kWh of electricity produced:

    Wind_Generation_01052014_24052014.png

    Wind generation data is available here, CO2 intensity data here.

    You missed what was said earlier - the SEAI/EPA/Eirgrid model calculates based on delivered and not dispatchable energy - i.e. does not take account of spinning reserve

    and the report you cite - did you read the conclusion

    The consequence is that an investment of billions of Euros in wind turbines produces not more than a few per cent reduction in CO2 output.


  • #117
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    do you remember your post #30 - don't trust them
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90481418&postcount=30
    That's not my post?
    fclauson wrote: »
    yes - but you still need it - so double costs with double infrastructure still needed
    Why is everything "double"? You've done the maths, have you?
    fclauson wrote: »
    I had a personal interaction with him.
    Which counts for nothing on an anonymous internet forum.
    fclauson wrote: »
    You missed what was said earlier - the SEAI/EPA/Eirgrid model calculates based on delivered and not dispatchable energy - i.e. does not take account of spinning reserve
    Yes, you've claimed that several times now. I'm still waiting for you to produce something other than "some bloke told me so - you'll just have to trust me" to support your claim.
    fclauson wrote: »
    and the report you cite - did you read the conclusion

    The consequence is that an investment of billions of Euros in wind turbines produces not more than a few per cent reduction in CO2 output.
    I didn't cite it, Birdnuts did.

    I dismissed it as nonsense. Why? Because their calculations don't include power generated by wind...
    The next step is to subtract the wind energy from the total demand and recalculate the CO2intensities (CO2conv) due to the conventional generators.
    ...which renders their conclusions completely meaningless.


  • #118
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »

    I dismissed it as nonsense. Why? Because their calculations don't include power generated by wind...
    ...which renders their conclusions completely meaningless.

    The conclusions are in line with the actual performance of wind power in terms of CO2 reduction across Europe ie. little or no savings in greenhouse gas emmissions despite a massive expansion of wind wind farms and pylons.


  • #119
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The conclusions are in line with the actual performance of wind power in terms of CO2 reduction across Europe ie. little or no savings in greenhouse gas emmissions despite a massive expansion of wind wind farms and pylons.
    You mean the conclusions are in line with your own preconceived notions? Have you even read the study in question? The analysis is extremely selective (the conclusions are almost entirely based on a few days in April 2011) and the methodology is questionable.

    Here's a (peer-reviewed) study from a number of years ago that reaches a rather different conclusion:
    Considerable CO2 reductions are seen with increasing levels of installed wind capacity, however, to significantly reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX in Ireland, wind generation must be combined with alternative emission reduction measures such as emission taxes, an alteration in the treatment of peat fired plant or load reduction schemes.
    http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/55295/IEEE%20in%20Press%20-%20Wind%20Generation,%20Power%20System%20Operation%20and%20Emissions%20Reduction.pdf;jsessionid=5F3A49040B9A2779EE8D9D35A7962430?sequence=1


  • #120
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You mean the conclusions are in line with your own preconceived notions? Have you even read the study in question? The analysis is extremely selective (the conclusions are almost entirely based on a few days in April 2011) and the methodology is questionable.

    Here's a (peer-reviewed) study from a number of years ago that reaches a rather different conclusion:

    http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/55295/IEEE%20in%20Press%20-%20Wind%20Generation,%20Power%20System%20Operation%20and%20Emissions%20Reduction.pdf;jsessionid=5F3A49040B9A2779EE8D9D35A7962430?sequence=1

    The study appears to assume a very large pumped storage capacity and other factors which does not exist in reality(no costings eitheir which are likely to be astronomical!!) - therefore its relevance to the current Irish situation is extremly weak if non-existent. It also assumes a higher averge capacity factor for wind then is obvious from even Eirgrids optimistic figures over the last few years. Since more wind farms are being intalled in sub-optimal areas in the midlands and East this capacity factor will decline further. If the likes of the Germans can't get wind to work in terms of emmissions etc. its rather unlikely that the Irish will fair much better. The phrase "good money after bad" I think sums up the idea that continuing to spend billions of euros on wind related infrastrature and supports makes any sense for consumers or the environment.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The study appears to assume a very large pumped storage capacity and other factors which does not exist in reality...
    Turlough Hill doesn't exist?
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    It also assumes a higher averge capacity factor for wind then is obvious from even Eirgrids optimistic figures over the last few years.
    I don't know what you're talking about here - no such assumption was made:
    The assumed wind generated on any day was based on ten years of real data from Irish wind farms.


  • #122
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Turlough Hill doesn't exist?
    I don't know what you're talking about here - no such assumption was made:

    Hardly adequate to meet demand at peak periods during your averge low wind conditions - let alone prolonged low wind conditions that are a feature of cold winters and hot summers when peak demand is even higher. Even assumming it operates at peak capacity.

    Also the report does indeed mentions the figure of 33% performance for installed wind capacity in its assumptions. This is higher than nearly every year since 2000 going on Eirgrids rather optimistic figures on the actual output of wind farms in this country.

    Indeed the whole basis of forecasting wind and basing ones power output on these forecasts is rather ropey given the dispearsed nature of this power source which means even wind farms on eithier side of a valley may be subject to very different wind regimes in any number of potential weather scenarious - which themselves are based on global forecasting models that are nowhere near accurate enough to give the fine detail needed for such an exercise. Getting accurate forecasts for the whole system on this basis is fancifull in the extreme.


  • #123
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    yellowlabrador wrote: »
    I suggest everyone visit a power station and the control room. You can then learn how electricity is supplied and keeps the country running. Certain energy streams get prioritized according to cost and demand spikes. All systems have benefits and disadvantages. The art is to switch between the different sources according to demand predictions, like the famous' let's all put the kettle on after coronation street.
    The real answer is for us all to become more energy efficient and find ways to reduce our demand.


    I would love to visit a power station - any chance you could set it up ?


  • #124
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not really. Electricity derived from wind is electricity that doesn't have to be derived from, say, oil. That represents a saving in fuel consumption.

    Wasting money, you mean? What's the point in decommissioning a power plant before it has reached the end of it's lifetime? Wouldn't that represent a massive waste of resources?

    Tarbert heavy fuel oil plant was due to close last year but is being kept open till 2021. The new CCGTs should have been able to replace it but clearly Eirgrid feel they need all the fossil fuel capacity they can get due to increased wind penetration.


  • #125
    Mississippi.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 283 ✭✭Mississippi.


    ted1 wrote: »
    Loads of inaccuracies there. Electric showers are in most cases actually more efficent.
    When I use my electric shower I heat the exact amount if water I use and not the full 300 litres of water In the tank and rads. Even after looking at the efficiency of how the electricity is generated and compare that to my boiler I reckon that the shower is still more efficent.

    During the eight months of the year when you have central heating on the hot water cylinder should be warm even if the balancing valve is only cracked open and this is what makes electric showers so inefficent. At the time of the year when the incoming water is at its coldest you are heating it completly with electricity to shower.A pumped mixer shower is all thats required then.


  • #126
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Mississippi. wrote: »
    ...... this is what makes electric showers so inefficent.....

    Electric heating is almost 100% efficient - has to be like


    A room heater drawing 3kw "gives" you 3kw

    A shower drawing 12kw gives you 12k - bar a bit of loss in the cables to it


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Mississippi.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 283 ✭✭Mississippi.


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Electric heating is almost 100% efficient - has to be like


    A room heater drawing 3kw "gives" you 3kw

    A shower drawing 12kw gives you 12k - bar a bit of loss in the cables to it

    It is not an efficent use of it though if you have a cylinder of hot water in the hotpress and you heat mains cold water to shower.


  • #128
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    yellowlabrador wrote: »
    That is just the point. A coal or peat powered station needs a long lead in time to run to capacity. The power it produces isn't instant. Gas or oil is. They keep the turbines idling and when extra electricity is needed, it's just the flick of a switch.

    Well you forget to say that the turbines are run at least optimum, so burning more fuel. Coal plants run at baseload - so it doesnt need to be fast acting.
    We also need to consider if fossil fuels could be better used in providing some of our other needs, like heating. It is a finite resource and as Ukraine proves, not a guaranteed one.

    A pan european network with a variety of different energy provision is a better solution.

    yes , finite, so we need to look at another solution other than wind because it doesnt close down plants. infact the opposite is the case.


  • #129
    Mississippi.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 283 ✭✭Mississippi.


    gctest50 wrote: »


    A room heater drawing 3kw "gives" you 3kw

    A room heater drawing 3 Kw is using 3Kw of electricity, not necessarly producing 3 Kw of room heat. Just like light bulbs some are more efficent than others.


  • #130
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Fabo wrote: »
    Well you forget to say that the turbines are run at least optimum, so burning more fuel. Coal plants run at baseload - so it doesnt need to be fast acting.



    yes , finite, so we need to look at another solution other than wind because it doesnt close down plants. infact the opposite is the case.

    Definitely need either better solutions then wind - or wind itself needs to improve. I don't see the latter happening anytime soon - as even pro wind people have jumped up and down in their prams to tell me that you can only get so much out of wind.

    So we need alternative solutions - imo - the question is - how do we start on the journey towards achieving those alternative solutions - and what should those alternative solutions be.


  • #131
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Way to totally miss the point.

    The data shows that as wind generation increases, CO2 intensity drops considerably.
    The data I used is taken from Eigrid's website - they're fudging their data too, are they?

    "EirGrid, with the support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, has together developed the following methodology for calculating CO2 emissions.. If you require any further information, please send an email to info@eirgrid.com. "


    SEAI , the same organisation that brought us "there are clear limitations in this analysis"


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Electric heating is almost 100% efficient - has to be like


    A room heater drawing 3kw "gives" you 3kw

    A shower drawing 12kw gives you 12k - bar a bit of loss in the cables to it

    The shower is 100% efficent but the generation of the electricity is only about 60% and there's losses between the house and generation station. Where as gas is about 90% efficent with no losses


  • #133
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Mississippi. wrote: »
    During the eight months of the year when you have central heating on the hot water cylinder should be warm even if the balancing valve is only cracked open and this is what makes electric showers so inefficent. At the time of the year when the incoming water is at its coldest you are heating it completly with electricity to shower.A pumped mixer shower is all thats required then.

    My heating is not on for 8 months. It's also not on when I shower. Electric shower is best for me. 100% of the heated water is used.


  • #134
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Turlough Hill doesn't exist?
    I don't know what you're talking about here - no such assumption was made:
    Turlough hill exists , it was actually built to work with the nuclear plant in Wexford but that never happened.

    Anyway the OP said a large number of pumped hydro. Turlough hill does not have the capacity the poster was talking about


  • #135
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    How low can we go Boi3l2nIIAARVp1.jpg


  • #136
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    well 7Mw is probably about the bottom

    BojAt0UIEAAXp3O.jpg


  • #137
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    fclauson wrote: »
    well 7Mw is probably about the bottom

    BojAt0UIEAAXp3O.jpg

    Very very poor - that really is woeful - it is good news however in one way in terms of achieving the best solutions - because the decision makers aren't interested in community concerns - they should be - and communities should be at the heart of debates on this issue - but they aren't.

    But even someone who whose only concern is DUBLIN - would have to be concerned that something intended to deliver 40 percent of our power can deliver that poor level of performance

    Biomass - isn't a perfect solution - but it could be a good short term solution as a back up to wind - meaning we could have some renewables operating when wind is busy delivering 7 MW of power.

    Water based solutions aren't perfect either and are in their infancy - BUT I do think we need to look closely at how we can harness whatever power is available from water - in a sensible practical way.

    There are no perfect solutions - but we NEED to develop superior renewables technology - as 7 MW on a Monday morning - just isn't cutting it imo


  • #138
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Hardly adequate to meet demand at peak periods during your averge low wind conditions...
    Quit shifting the goalposts.

    You said the study relied on the existence of pumped storage that doesn't exist. I'm pointing out that it obviously does exist.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Also the report does indeed mentions the figure of 33% performance for installed wind capacity in its assumptions.
    Yes, it does mention it, briefly in the discussion in the context of the ESB’s Generation Adequacy Report:
    Under the EU Directive [1] the Republic of Ireland must generate 13.2% of its gross electricity consumption through renewable energy sources by 2010. Given load projections in the ESB’s Generation Adequacy Report [26] and an assumed capacity factor of 33%, installed renewable energy in the Republic needs to be approximately 1500MW in 2010 to meet this renewable target.
    But it has absolutely nothing to do with the paper's conclusions, because generation figures were based on actual wind profiles.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Indeed the whole basis of forecasting wind and basing ones power output on these forecasts is rather ropey given the dispearsed nature of this power source which means even wind farms on eithier side of a valley may be subject to very different wind regimes in any number of potential weather scenarious...
    Doesn't matter - they're connected to the same grid.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    ...which themselves are based on global forecasting models that are nowhere near accurate enough to give the fine detail needed for such an exercise. Getting accurate forecasts for the whole system on this basis is fancifull in the extreme.
    And yet, it isn't:
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/


  • #139
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fabo wrote: »
    "EirGrid, with the support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, has together developed the following methodology for calculating CO2 emissions.. If you require any further information, please send an email to info@eirgrid.com. "
    Is there a reason you’ve chopped out the bit on the middle?
    EirGrid, with the support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, has together developed the following methodology for calculating CO2 emissions. The rate of carbon emissions is calculated in real time by using the generators MW output, the individual heat rate curves for each power station and the calorific values for each type of fuel used. The heat rate curves are used to determine the efficiency at which a generator burns fuel at any given time. The fuel calorific values are then used to calculate the rate of carbon emissions for the fuel being burned by the generator. If you require any further information, please send an email to info@eirgrid.com.
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/co2emissions/test


  • #140
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Is there a reason you’ve chopped out the bit on the middle?
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/co2emissions/test


    CO2 Emissions
    EirGrid, with the support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, has together developed the following methodology for calculating CO2 emissions.. If you require any further information, please send an email to info@eirgrid.com.

    This representation of CO2 Emissions is jointly supported by EirGrid and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. SEAI Logo


    I will try to post a printscreen to prove this is what I get.


  • #141
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fabo wrote: »
    CO2 Emissions
    EirGrid, with the support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, has together developed the following methodology for calculating CO2 emissions.. If you require any further information, please send an email to info@eirgrid.com.

    This representation of CO2 Emissions is jointly supported by EirGrid and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. SEAI Logo


    I will try to post a printscreen to prove this is what I get.
    Regardless, the explanation given for emissions calculation is perfectly reasonable. Despite suggestions to the contrary by several posters on this thread, I see no reason why "spinning reserve" would be omitted from such calculations and indeed no evidence has been presented in support of such suggestions.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    visual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,267 ✭✭✭visual


    RTE had a short piece on windfarms I believe it was prime time where they looked at German model and since the introduction of wind energy their carbon output has increased and not gone down because the carbon is generated by fossil fuel that have to increase output.

    This translates in to higher electricity bills 229 euro per user per year subsidising wind power.

    The net effect is more expensive electric with higher CO2

    Wind energy isn't the answer if the net result is it costs more to produce and CO2 increases.


  • #143
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    visual wrote: »
    RTE had a short piece on windfarms I believe it was prime time where they looked at German model and since the introduction of wind energy their carbon output has increased and not gone down because the carbon is generated by fossil fuel that have to increase output.
    I think you'll find it has more to do with Germany substituting coal-fired electricity generation for nuclear.


  • #144
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Is there a reason you’ve chopped out the bit on the middle?
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/co2emissions/test

    firstly appologies for attributing a quote to you some time back which was not yours

    but coming back to the model - page 49
    http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/EPSSU_Publications/Renewable-Energy-in-Ireland-2012.pdf

    The limitations and caveats associated with this methodology include.....


  • #145
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Back to an earlier topic around wind prediction - remembering we had a record today of a forecast of 500Mw and a actual of 3mw


    2014_05_26_16_35_33.jpg


  • #146
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    but coming back to the model - page 49
    http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/EPSSU_Publications/Renewable-Energy-in-Ireland-2012.pdf

    The limitations and caveats associated with this methodology include.....
    And if we continue to read to the final sentence:
    It is worth noting, however, that the results emerging from a forthcoming detailed electricity system modelling analysis by SEAI of the impact of renewable energy for year 2012 broadly supports the above estimation.
    So this would appear to suggest that the limitations of the model are not significant.
    fclauson wrote: »
    Back to an earlier topic around wind prediction - remembering we had a record today of a forecast of 500Mw and a actual of 3mw
    I don't know where you're getting that 500MW figure from - there's nothing above about 100MW here:
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/

    And I'm not sure percentages are the best way to express forecast accuracy. An error of 50% is far more significant for a forecast of 1500MW than it is for a forecast of 150MW.


  • #147
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So this would appear to suggest that the limitations of the model are not significant.
    devil in the detail - I have been on to them a number of times for the update to this report but it still in preparation.

    It comes back to my point 1Mw of wind does not equal 1Mw of fuel saved elsewhere (which is the general assumption).
    I don't know where you're getting that 500MW figure from - there's nothing above about 100MW here:
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/
    genuine mistake should read 50mw not 500
    And I'm not sure percentages are the best way to express forecast accuracy. An error of 50% is far more significant for a forecast of 1500MW than it is for a forecast of 150MW.

    True - ideas on how to represent welcome - but is should say there was a 5% deficiency for about 3500 15 mins periods
    and a 10% deficiency for 3000 periods
    and a 15% deficiently for 2400 periods etc


  • #148
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    My original post was all about C02 reduction

    take a look at this chart - which do you think is the case

    Windy day 1 or Windy day 2

    The grid must never be under resourced (see http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/capacityadequacyindicator/) and with the variability of wind how much does Eirgrid / the fossil fuel generators actually slow down their generation plants when its windy

    2014_05_27_06_30_58.jpg

    the 70 & 30 values are used by way of example and do not represent actualy reliance on what percentage reserve is kept available. In reality reading http://www.eirgrid.com/media/2013%20D4WI%20Study.xlsx it seems around 100% is kept in reserve vs the peak demand requirment becuae they always have to allow for failire of either a plant or one of the interconnectors


  • #149
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    So just a further thought on my post above.

    If say wind delivers 1000mw into a 4000mw demand.
    And looking at Eirgrid peak capability numbers they have any where between min of 57%, max of 182%, average of 103% additional capacity

    So say (using the average) thats a further 4000mw available to cover the above demand (thats a demand of 4000 and a backup of 4000)

    Given that and the 1000mw coming from wind the saving is 1/8 total required capacity over if it was all non wind.

    Then how much do you cover wind because of its variability ?

    A saving on what looks like 25% (1000/4000) is actually 12.5% (1000/8000 and then you need to deduct the additional cover because its wind - so where do we end up ?
    6%, 8% ,10% - who knows ?

    Finally what impact does plant ramping to track wind variability have

    Thoughts every one please ??


  • #150
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    It comes back to my point 1Mw of wind does not equal 1Mw of fuel saved elsewhere (which is the general assumption).
    It’s not a general assumption I’ve ever come across – 100% efficiency is impossible to achieve.
    fclauson wrote: »
    Then how much do you cover wind because of its variability ?
    Not a whole lot really – the wind is suddenly going to drop to zero. If we look at the cumulative distribution of the absolute magnitude of all forecast errors since January 1st, this is what we get:

    Wind_Generation__Cumulative_01052014_27052014.png

    So 95% of all forecast errors are 300MW or less. Also bear in mind that forecasts are likely to be constantly updated, so that 300MW figure may well be an over-estimate.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Thoughts given that ^ are now, as they were before.

    The fact of the matter is that wind is a renewable energy source, if somewhat sporadic. The infrastructure for some of it is already there.
    Is it a magic bullet....no
    Has anyone here suggested it is.....no
    Is it a viable resource that has a place in our network.....imo yes
    Will it need further network developments to fully utilize it's potential.....yes
    Is the same true of every other renewable energy source recognized at this stage...yes

    It doesn't really matter that you dislike the sensationalist way it is presented, in fact I feel as if you are putting it down in the exact same manner.
    It is a step away from the hydrocarbon solution, in the sense that it is converting an infinite free source of energy into electricity for our use. At present it is hampered by the way our grid operates, the way we use electricity and the infrastructure we have already created around the technology of the last millennium. All of these things have design lives, the challenge before us is to find alternatives, improvements and replacements within their practical lifetimes, and whether you like it or not, wind power will play a part in this.

    I understand your concerns about it's current efficiency and performance, particularly where spinning capacity has to be maintained, but this is a hangover from the inherited network, rather than a design flaw in a new network. The vision, design detail and technology for the network is still taking form, and agitating about the weaknesses of a resource merely makes you come across as negative.

    A building standard that required passive house certification for all one-off new builds would probably be a wiser step, but again the same problems with lobby groups and corporate interest will fly in the face of this long term investment, until the technology has been proven, perfected and made affordable. Its a part of a process, and getting riled up about the speed of the process doesn't speed it up.

    Those are my thoughts, They are not a criticism of any of the information you have put forward, as I honestly don't understand many of the figures that you have put forward. I just think that the ugly truths are actually about human behavior, political hubris, corporate greed and individual responsibility, rather than a windmill that does exactly what it was designed to do when you put it where you were meant to. Examine the wind farms from the bottom up, and they are doing exactly what it said on the tin.


Advertisement