Davy’s got the wind generation numbers wrong

Grudaire wrote: »

Yeah I'm pretty sure that this was reported as a peak daily - and the monthly figure is more like ~20%

Month total wind = 24% http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/wind-energy-eases-cost-of-power-255088.html
Peak wind supply = 40% http://vayu.ie/record-amount-of-electricity-generated-from-wind-energy-in-december-2013/
Similar figures for Northern Ireland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25953671

OK - but one day's peak is irrelevant to this argument they are painting. They are suggesting that Ireland "can't have any more new wind capacity" because in Dec it produced 40% of the demand. It didn't. During one hour on 16 December 2013, it produced 40% of the required power. That is a completely different animal. Even if the ESB went on strike for one day and produced / sold no power, it would not be a threat to the engineering of the system - financial or otherwise.

This story is painting a grossly misleading picture in my view, and the fact that it was reproduced in a newspaper doesn't say much for the caliber of journalism in that newspaper.

ted1 wrote: »

The article is correct 40% is the max wind the grid can take.
There is inherent issues which go with the use of turbines these are notably with frequency and voltage regulation but more so frequency.

Also wind makes up what is called a distributed grid which caused issues with distribution and transmission.
we use 110kv, 44kv, 38kv and 10kv. When the wind blows in the west you need to get this to the other parts of Ireland however it's quite difficult to get it to some parts and we end up with a weak grid. Which cause a brown out in areas.

There's a lot more to the grid than simply adding turbines

While IRL is nowhere near 40%, I agree. 90% of renewables is about the Irish / global energy grid. If you take a wind energy output chart of Ireland and place it over a wind energy map of Denmark, you get about 97% continuity of supply - ie when it is windy in IRL, it is not so in DK and v-v. And the same thing applies within Ireland, it is often windy in one province and not in another. And ditto in terms of solar between Europe and the Middle East / North Africa. Winter = lots of energy production in the North, Summer = lots of energy production in the South. etc.

Which is why IRL and DE and everyone else will have to devise acceptable pylon and cable systems to make the thing work. There is no alternative in the longer term. Period.

IRL and other countries are wasting so much money on imported fossil fuels - Ireland's energy import bill = an Anglo Irish bailout every five years - ie 5 x €6 billion = 30 €billion.

Who in their right mind wants to head into an eternal future for themselves and their children with this noose around their neck?

ted1 wrote: »

Over the past few years wind has not dine anything to reduce energy costs.we still require spinning reserve and are cycling our plants which reduces efficiency and increase co2/kwh it'll be interesting to see what happens when the current REFIT ends.

We don't have oil, coal or gas reserves. What do you propose we use. Wind is not the answer to our main source of energy

Money invested in wind projects delivers energy over about 25 years. Hydroelectric power is similar but has a longer shelf life. It is the cheapest source of electricity now - even though the capital costs way back when the infrastructure was installed were no doubt extremely high.

You don't need large amounts of spinning reserve when there are adequate wind forces in the forecast - an exercise which can look ahead with about 95% accuracy for five days in advance, as I stated before.

We never had significant oil, coal or gas reserves, yet it is/was used every day to generate electricity. They have to be imported, which leads to my point of the €6 billion outflow from the economy, every year.

There is an installed base of hydrocarbon generation which will suffice for the rest of its useful life in filling gaps. Until such time as sufficient international connectivity is established to export surplus energy, and import when there is a deficit. Anybody investing in new carbon fuelled power stations should only put their money into fast start systems.

Ireland can produce far more wind energy than it needs - onshore and offshore there is probably 30 to 40 GW/h in natural resources. Ireland produces far more beef and dairy products than the country needs, and exports them. Ireland produces no cars, and has to import them all. The same principles should apply to energy in order to have an efficient energy supply. There would be no point in setting up a car plant in Ireland – like they did a hundred years or so ago.

PV is achieving higher efficiencies and lower price per kWh every year, and the time will come in the not too distant future when it will reach grid parity, especially in the southern half of the country. This will complement wind, wave and other renewable sources of energy.

When the DART system was opened in Dublin in 1984, the universal cry was the massive investment and "waste of money" involved (from memory it was under 200 € million). Despite its poor design, I don't think anybody would today say that this initiative was a waste of money.

In addition there is a trend to replace running costs of a product or service with higher capital investment (interest rates are extremely low and it is more sustainable). This is manifest in the use of heat exchangers rather than “carbon consuming central heating”, the heavy use of insulation in buildings, and electric cars which currently cost more to buy, but cost less to run.

ted1 wrote: »

We'll agree to differ I don't think wind is the answer, it's not reliable enough. We'll always need a secondary source. Wind gets a lot of traction especially with the SEAI perhaps Mr,Halligan and his commercial interests are the reason for this.

With regards wave energy that gets thrown into a lot of conversations. But as of yet there is no commercial wave converters on the market.

Innovation and change takes time to develop, refine and implement. Think quantum computing and looking back the change from monochrome to colour TV. It was expensive and as a result few people had it in their homes in the early days. Now it is well established and perhaps from a point of view of broadcast TV becoming passe.

ted1 wrote: »

As regards the DART I don't see the relevance of it?

I see it as an example of another large capital investment that was very controversial back in the day, and is now part of everyday life for people travelling in its catchment area.