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
12357…47

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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 ?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #125
    Mississippi.
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #126
    gctest50
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #127
    Mississippi.
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #129
    Mississippi.
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #130
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #132
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #133
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #134
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭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


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


    How low can we go Boi3l2nIIAARVp1.jpg


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


    well 7Mw is probably about the bottom

    BojAt0UIEAAXp3O.jpg


  • Options
    #137
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #138
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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/


  • Options
    #139
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #141
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #142
    visual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,268 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #143
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #144
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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.....


  • Options
    #145
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #146
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #147
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #148
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #149
    fclauson
    Registered Users 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 ??


  • Options
    #150
    djpbarry
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #151
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users 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