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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Wind farms - ugly truths

Options
12467…47

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,259 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    mister gullible wrote: »
    It's unbelievable that a country on the windswept edge of Europe with many areas of sparse population is not generating massive amounts of electricity from wind. It is a vast untapped resource. Seems obvious that heavy wind generation, when the wind blows, will more than cancel out the loss of efficiency in ramping conventional backup plants up and down. A visit to the massive wind farm south of Glasgow is interesting - the turbines are an impressive feature of the landscape and the maintenance/access roads are open to hikers/bikers etc with good parking supplied (free). Whenever I travel through the midlands and west I wonder where are all the windmills? And they should be generating power for ordinary Irish people, not for other countries. Let's not go down the road of selling off our resources cheaply as has been done in the past to profit major corporations. Power to the people!!

    Grids are limited in how much wind they can handle, there distributed generation that cause frequency and voltage issues.

    Turbines have cut in and cut out speeds, strong winds don't suit them not does low wind.

    Your are an example of the type person I was highlighting in my previous posts


  • Options
    #93
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Well - I have to thank everyone for their input

    we have the interested - those who want to contribute with valid additional info (thank you)
    we have the non-believers who will knock any think that says wind farms are BAD
    we have the non believers who will knock any thing that says wind farms are GOOD
    we have those who cannot be bother to comment - but comment that they cannot be bothered
    and they ones who make silly comments because they are irritated that I make statements which contain invalid data

    but the ones that irritate me most are the ones who disagree and FAIL to provide valid counter peer reviewed data to show that I am wrong

    More importantly
    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
    which power stations have been decommissioned as a result of wind energy
    and
    the biggest elephant (which no one seems to be able to provide me with data on) how much C02 is saved by wind farms given than no one can show what power stations actually slow down or stop during wind. Spinning reserve (available dispatchable backup) is an evil fact of life on the grid but seems to go unqualified in any report one reads.

    A statement from the SEAI
    Regarding the matter of reserve requirements, the key determining factor is the size of the largest thermal generating unit on the system, and is not affected by wind generation at current levels. This is because the key issue is predictability: for thermal generators an unexpected breakdown can happen at any point, is generally unpredictable and can result in large short term ramping requirements. The largest unit on the system is 480 MW in size with the interconnector being 500MW. These determine the reserve requirements.

    Reading this - regardless of how much wind we have Eirgird always have to have spinning reserve to cover the thermal plants to match if one pops off line and the largest of these is 48Mw - so there is 480mw of disptachable power always sitting there to bring on line (and its belching out C02 all the time as its sits there)

    SO BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION
    How much C02 is saved by wind farms


  • Options
    #94
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Sorry - I forgot to say where I fell in the list above.

    Its all about the data - I follow the 4 P's as I did when I built the first (and currently only) A1 Passive Certified House in Ireland

    P - Pragmatic (it make sense)
    P - Price conscious (its affordable)
    P - Practical (it can be built given current capability)
    P - Passive (it aims for as lower impact on the environment (as possible)

    Note on low impact to environment:this has to have regard to the visual impact, noise impact, land use impact, C02 out put impact, materials used in construction impact, and I am sure some others too

    Our energy infrastructure could do little better than follow the above


  • Options
    #95
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,259 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    fclauson wrote: »
    Well - I have to thank everyone for their input

    we have the interested - those who want to contribute with valid additional info (thank you)
    we have the non-believers who will knock any think that says wind farms are BAD
    we have the non believers who will knock any thing that says wind farms are GOOD
    we have those who cannot be bother to comment - but comment that they cannot be bothered
    and they ones who make silly comments because they are irritated that I make statements which contain invalid data

    but the ones that irritate me most are the ones who disagree and FAIL to provide valid counter peer reviewed data to show that I am wrong

    More importantly
    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
    which power stations have been decommissioned as a result of wind energy
    and
    the biggest elephant (which no one seems to be able to provide me with data on) how much C02 is saved by wind farms given than no one can show what power stations actually slow down or stop during wind. Spinning reserve (available dispatchable backup) is an evil fact of life on the grid but seems to go unqualified in any report one reads.

    A statement from the SEAI
    Regarding the matter of reserve requirements, the key determining factor is the size of the largest thermal generating unit on the system, and is not affected by wind generation at current levels. This is because the key issue is predictability: for thermal generators an unexpected breakdown can happen at any point, is generally unpredictable and can result in large short term ramping requirements. The largest unit on the system is 480 MW in size with the interconnector being 500MW. These determine the reserve requirements.

    Reading this - regardless of how much wind we have Eirgird always have to have spinning reserve to cover the thermal plants to match if one pops off line and the largest of these is 48Mw - so there is 480mw of disptachable power always sitting there to bring on line (and its belching out C02 all the time as its sits there)

    SO BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION
    How much C02 is saved by wind farms
    Just because you mentioned the interconnect I must point out that Eirgrid won't include it when planning baseload because it fies guarantee security if supply

    DSU is growing and there's an excess of over 150MW available for them to cover short term supply issues


  • Options
    #96
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    mister gullible wrote: »
    It's unbelievable that a country on the windswept edge of Europe with many areas of sparse population is not generating massive amounts of electricity from wind.

    Whats the point ? We are still as dependent on fossil fuels with 2000MW as before.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    fclauson wrote: »

    SO BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION
    How much C02 is saved by wind farms

    irrelevant. any savings occur in a much bigger system (20% bigger) than would otherwise have been the case.

    if wind was so great we would be closing tarbert


  • Options
    #98
    Fabo
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    ted1 wrote: »
    Just because you mentioned the interconnect I must point out that Eirgrid won't include it when planning baseload because it fies guarantee security if supply

    we're importing about 400-450MW during the day. Provides dispatchable power - mostly evil coal and evil nuclear.

    Take this morning as I post this on 11:07am. Wind generation running at about 50% capacity, providing 30% penetration (meeting 30% of demand) , yet we are importing 430MW from England - the interconnector is running at 86% capacity ! crazy.

    Wind energy is part of a reckless energy policy driving capacity to enormous levels way above demand or what is necessary.

    The hypocrisy on the part of wind merchants is the worst part - burning coal and tapping nuclear is okay as long as its across the sea.


  • Options
    #99
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    I would recommend that anybody who believes wind energy technology is excellent and needs no improvement - should keep a sharp eye on @EirGrid_Info (on twitter) - over a long period of time.

    It gives regular updates each day - showing at an exact point in time - what Demand was, how much wind output was recorded as - and how much we import and export to the UK.

    I believe that its not completely perfect - Francis (OP of this tread) will have much more understanding of this then I do.

    but on FAR too many occasions - you will see wind performing poorly - down to single figures even.

    The reason that's relevant - well 2 reasons really - firstly we are expecting to achieve 40 percent electricity from this Wind resource.

    Secondly - the fact that wind performs poorly at times - means you NEED more wind turbines to achieve the required performance over say a 12 month period.

    This is also the reason - imo - why we need more pylons - so we can move lots of wind production around the country in one go - we need to do that I think simply to use as much wind energy as possible when its available.

    Going to have a look at that eirgrid twitter account I mentioned at the start and produce some examples


  • Options
    #100
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Okay - some Eirgrid stats (source @EirGrid_Info on twitter)

    21 May 17,45 pm Demand 4,513 MW Wind output - 77 MW

    21 May 16,45 pm Demand 4,517 MW Wind Output - 75 MW

    20 May 12,45 pm Demand 4,663 MW Wind Output - 128 MW

    20 May 11,45 pm Demand 4,601 MW Wind Output - 93 MW

    19 May 12,45 pm Demand 4,580 MW Wind Output 137 MW

    19 May 11,45 pm Demand 4,522 MW Wind Output 143 MW

    To put that into perspective - our Rep of Ireland rated max out put is around 1,950 MW - and I think the stats are all Ireland stats - our total All Ireland max rated output is around 2,400 MW

    Of course I could produce more but that will do for now


  • Options
    #101
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Fabo wrote: »
    we're importing about 400-450MW during the day. Provides dispatchable power - mostly evil coal and evil nuclear.

    Take this morning as I post this on 11:07am. Wind generation running at about 50% capacity, providing 30% penetration (meeting 30% of demand) , yet we are importing 430MW from England - the interconnector is running at 86% capacity ! crazy.

    Wind energy is part of a reckless energy policy driving capacity to enormous levels way above demand or what is necessary.

    The hypocrisy on the part of wind merchants is the worst part - burning coal and tapping nuclear is okay as long as its across the sea.

    Bear in mind that today is actually quite a good day for wind - you all too often get times of VERY low output from wind - like the stats ive produced.

    I can put up more stats - theres just too many to go through :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    yellowlabrador
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #103
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #104
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭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???


  • Options
    #105
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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%.


  • Options
    #106
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #107
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #108
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #109
    yellowlabrador
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #110
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #111
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #112
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #113
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #114
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #115
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #116
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #117
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #118
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #119
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #120
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #121
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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.


Advertisement