[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by SeanW

The environmental-left likes to paint a picture of nuclear vs. renewables...

Please stop constructing that straw man.

Originally Posted by SeanW

But I don't think wind turbines are helping much as they have to be subsidised with P.S.O. levies...

Show me a form of electricity generation that has never been subsidised.

[pljudge321]

For reference REFIT cost €36 million this year, less than the subsidy given to the peat plants and about 2% the value of the yearly market.

[Capt'n Midnight]

Originally Posted by SeanW

But I don't think wind turbines are helping much as they have to be subsidised with P.S.O. levies, so I'm dubious of claims that they've saved us money.

It was done to death a while back

wind gets roughly the same total subsidy as peat & some older private plants
and there is a hell of a lot more wind

dig up the document showing ALL subsidies to all generators and then show where wind takes the lions share

[Macha]

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

It was done to death a while back

wind gets roughly the same total subsidy as peat & some older private plants
and there is a hell of a lot more wind

dig up the document showing ALL subsidies to all generators and then show where wind takes the lions share

Plus the benefits of current market rules and existing infrastructure.

[SeanW]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

Please stop constructing that straw man.
Show me a form of electricity generation that has never been subsidised.

Wow. NEVER been subsidised? Ever? Ever ever ever? That's quite a high bar you've set. But you'll have to forgive me if I don't take it all that seriously. Question is, what is subsidised today?

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

wind gets roughly the same total subsidy as peat

Which I oppose.

& some older private plants

If an "older private plant" is inefficient, the case to subsidise it, imo cannot be very strong.

and there is a hell of a lot more wind

But at least you can rely on the older private plants and peat - for example in a Siberian anti-cyclone when ALL renewables fail, at least you can throw more peat or whatever on the fire!

[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by SeanW

Question is, what is subsidised today?

Well, no, it isn't, because the whole point of subsidies is to influence the future. In that context, it is pertinent to consider what has been subsidised in the past and how that has influenced the present. Considering what is subsidised today in isolation is pointless.

Originally Posted by SeanW

But at least you can rely on the older private plants and peat - for example in a Siberian anti-cyclone when ALL renewables fail, at least you can throw more peat or whatever on the fire!

Thanks for enlightening us once more.

[Capt'n Midnight]

Originally Posted by SeanW

But at least you can rely on the older private plants and peat - for example in a Siberian anti-cyclone when ALL renewables fail, at least you can throw more peat or whatever on the fire!

You'll be disappointed when you see how little energy we actually get from those plants.

In reality we could get more over the interconnectors if large industries in the north of England reduced consumption. And averaged out over a year probably cheaper.




http://www.greenparty.ie/news.html?n=92

Last year fossil fuels were subsidised worldwide by more than $500bn, six times the level of support for renewable power. Ministers Phil Hogan and Pat Rabbitte will now have to show how we will arrange an end to our own remaining fossil fuel subsidy," concluded Ossian Smyth.

€70m subsidy for turf from PSO levy from CER Decision paper July 2011:
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres...12decision.pdf

[SeanW]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

Considering what is subsidised today in isolation is pointless.

That's a very wild claim, for one thing subsidies are often, nay usually, used to support an activity that is financially unviable but provides socio-economic benefit. For example railways (which I agree with) are subsidised on a long term, prepetual basis because of their value to society. It is my view however, that renewable energy, while requiring subsidies on the same basis, do not offer the same utility, and that money spent on them might be better used to finance or save up for railway projects like the Dublin Metro or DART Underground (the latter of which I actively campaigned for in ~2005)

Thanks for enlightening us once more.

I'm sorry, but we've seen from Christmas 2010 that when we need power the most, renewables simply will not be there. I question the wisdom of subsidising power plants that you have no clue when they will produce power, only that they WILL fail when you need them the most.

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

You'll be disappointed when you see how little energy we actually get from those plants.

Quite likely. But at least they can be controlled.

http://www.greenparty.ie/news.html?n=92

Because the Green Party is a reliable source of information about energy issues

The Green Party is the problem, not the solution. But for the pinheads that caused the Carnsore Point NPP to be scrapped (before Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island), Ireland would now be less dependent on fossil fuels and peat.

At least one of you has admitted that renewables are not a solution in and of themselves, and I expect they may not necessarily ever displace a single baseline power plant, save for perhaps Iceland or Norway. So the question of nuclear vs. fossil fuels arises.

The Green Party, Greenpeace and other elements of the environmental-left have clearly chosen fossil fuels, despite the immense costs (chiefly environmental!) of doing so and despite feeble claims to be anti-fossil fuels as well.

So for Ossyan Smith to start complaining about subsidies to fossil fuel fired power, is to say the least a bit rich and frankly more than a little bizarre. It's your side the supports fossil fuels, not mine.

[Capt'n Midnight]

Originally Posted by SeanW

Because the Green Party is a reliable source of information about energy issues

please comment on the references they use.

The Green Party is the problem, not the solution. But for the pinheads that caused the Carnsore Point NPP to be scrapped (before Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island), Ireland would now be less dependent on fossil fuels and peat.

you forgot to mention the UK scares too. Or the other Japanese ones , or the jams in the German pebble bed reactor, or the contaminated Indian plant etc. Stories that would be far more prominent if we had one on our doorstep.

A white elephant whose future depended on there not being a nuclear incident before the next election. And that's if it worked. Something like half of the plants in the US of that vintage had an unplanned outage of a year or more.

I expect they may not necessarily ever displace a single baseline power plant, save for perhaps Iceland or Norway. So the question of nuclear vs. fossil fuels arises.

We are indirectly connected to Norway.

Renewables don't give constant power.
Renewables don't have a constant fuel bill.

Trick is to match power and demand.

Smart meters properly setup and a web site advertising prices over the next 24 hours. you adjust the delay on the washing machine / drier / dishwasher / immersion to match - simple load balancing

as I've pointed out ad nauseum it can be cheaper to pay big customers to not use power at peak times than provide peaking plants to match.


and yes the big investment in energy should be in insulating houses / hot water tanks. if we can double the time a house stays warm then you don't need to turn on the heating on so often and load balancing becomes easier

[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by SeanW

That's a very wild claim, for one thing subsidies are often, nay usually, used to support an activity that is financially unviable but provides socio-economic benefit.

They’re also used to build market share more rapidly and/or to reduce barriers for competition to enter an industry.

Originally Posted by SeanW

I'm sorry, but we've seen from Christmas 2010 that when we need power the most, renewables simply will not be there.

Great. Let’s just ignore the fact that Ireland is one of the windiest (if not the windiest) place on the planet and we can literally harness electricity from thin air at very low cost. Let’s also ignore the fact that Ireland gets about 10% of its electricity from wind, on average.

Continuously pointing out the mind-numbingly obvious fact that wind generation is dependent on wind is just. Plain. Stupid.

Originally Posted by SeanW

The Green Party is the problem, not the solution. But for the pinheads that caused the Carnsore Point NPP to be scrapped (before Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island), Ireland would now be less dependent on fossil fuels and peat.

The Green Party is solely responsible for the lack of nuclear generation in Ireland? I had no idea they were so influential.

Originally Posted by SeanW

At least one of you has admitted that renewables are not a solution in and of themselves...

I’m reaching for my mod hat here – nobody has argued that renewables are the silver bullet. Stop constructing straw men.

Originally Posted by SeanW

So the question of nuclear vs. fossil fuels arises.

As has been pointed out to you countless times before, that is a ridiculous over-simplification. It’s a question of finding the best mix of all elements, be they renewable, nuclear, coal, gas or whatever – it is not a binary choice.

Originally Posted by SeanW

It's your side the supports fossil fuels...

Just because someone disagrees with you on a particular point, doesn’t mean they reside on the opposite side of some imagined dividing line that you have constructed.

[pljudge321]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

Let’s also ignore the fact that Ireland gets about 10% of its electricity from wind, on average.

Its higher than that actually, 16% last year and on track for around 18% this year.

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

if we can double the time a house stays warm then you don't need to turn on the heating on so often and load balancing becomes easier

One of the interesting things that people doing demand side management research have told me is that the more efficient buildings become the less scope there is to manage the load so its kind of a catch 22. A lot of people in the industry are highly skeptical about whether domestic DSM will work at all.

If you take the value of the ancillary services market that DSM makes its money from and split it up between a few hundred thousand houses there isn't all that much money there to incentivise people. Fridges & freezers are one of the devices that might be practical to use because they are always on and they can deal with being shut off for 30 minutes or so.

[SeanW]

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

please comment on the references they use.

I'm sure they're in order. Doesn't change the fact that the Green Party is far from objective.

Trick is to match power and demand.
...
as I've pointed out ad nauseum it can be cheaper to pay big customers to not use power at peak times than provide peaking plants to match.
... load balancing ...

Yes, among other things you mentioned the heavy industry in the Northeast of England.

About the "load balancing" stuff, I have two questions/comments:

1. During the anti-cyclone of 2010, my family and I lost our oil fired central heating, we had to turn on everything electric (oven, multiple electric heaters and the immersion and pour large amounts of fuel into the fireplace to stop from freezing over, as temperatures plunged to below -15C. Power demand surged over the end of that December as wind speeds dropped to a dead calm over the period of the anti-cyclone.
   If I understand your "windmills and load balancing" scheme correctly, we would have had a €1000 eletric bill that month, assuming the grid stayed online.
2. You do realise that industry requires a RELIABLE energy supply? What you are proposing is to simply dump the problem of unstable renewables onto the backs of what's left of the European industrial base.
   Question: how can a factory plan production for the next week or so when according to your plan they'd be at the mercy of the weather? How should the factory workers fare in all this? Should they be "on call" i.e. only come into work each day if the wind is blowing? Who should bear the cost of idle days? The workers or the employer?
   Finally, how much of this nonsense do you think these industry owners would put up with before deciding "This crap is Reason #236 to pack up and feck off to India?"

Originally Posted by djpbarry

They’re also used to build market share more rapidly and/or to reduce barriers for competition to enter an industry.

You have evidence that this is the case? Is there a schedule for the phasing out of the subsidies?

Continuously pointing out the mind-numbingly obvious fact that wind generation is dependent on wind is just. Plain. Stupid.

I wouldn't have to if the environmental-left would stop going on about how nuclear power is evil and windmills are the best thing since sliced bread.

I’m reaching for my mod hat here – nobody has argued that renewables are the silver bullet. Stop constructing straw men.

Again, don't tell me, tell your friends at Greenpeace and the rest of the environmental-left.

As has been pointed out to you countless times before, that is a ridiculous over-simplification. It’s a question of finding the best mix of all elements, be they renewable, nuclear, coal, gas or whatever – it is not a binary choice.
Just because someone disagrees with you on a particular point, doesn’t mean they reside on the opposite side of some imagined dividing line that you have constructed.

With all due respect, I think it really is that simple. When the oil crisis of 1970 whatever it was came, France went down the road of nuclear energy wholeheartedly. As a result, its power system is 90% non-fossil.

Ireland's response was drafted by hippy pinheads at Carnsore point and as a direct consequence our power system is 90% fossil fuel and peat. With all the bog destruction, pollution and CO2 emissions that this entails.

I've made no secret of which I prefer - I'm primarily opposed to traditional thermal power and think we've got it wrong.

You could argue that it's a nuanced mix, as you do, that you could have more of one thing in one country and more something else somewhere else, potentially including nuclear under appropriate circumstances, but again, the environmental-left will never agree with that.

In objecting so strenuously - and with so little reason - to nuclear energy it's the enviornmental-left that has created the fossil fuels vs. nuclear divide that is anything but imaginary.

[Waestrel]

Sean W, do you have any policy on nuclear waste disposal for the material that an Irish plant would create?

[SeanW]

Yes. Recycling would be a central plank: a typical cycle through a nuclear reactor uses only about 5% of the fissionable material. Some countries, like France, the U.K. and possibly Japan, have the facilities necessary to create new fuels from "spent" fuels.

A reactor design would be chosed firstly on its suitability for the Irish market size, but also based on its ability to produce and use reusable fuels, the contract for such reprocessing likely being offered to the French.

As for the transuranic elements that remain, we would lobby for a change to the laws of the sea to allow subduction zone burial of un reprocessable waste, failing that, we would commission a report to find the most geologically stable part of the Irish soverign territory and drill a hole deep down into that area to bury waste. In this case, the waste would be entombed in boroscilicate glass prior to being buried.

[Waestrel]

Originally Posted by SeanW

Yes. Recycling would be a central plank: a typical cycle through a nuclear reactor uses only about 5% of the fissionable material. Some countries, like France, the U.K. and possibly Japan, have the facilities necessary to create new fuels from "spent" fuels.

A reactor design would be chosed firstly on its suitability for the Irish market size, but also based on its ability to produce and use reusable fuels, the contract for such reprocessing likely being offered to the French.

As for the transuranic elements that remain, we would lobby for a change to the laws of the sea to allow subduction zone burial of un reprocessable waste, failing that, we would commission a report to find the most geologically stable part of the Irish soverign territory and drill a hole deep down into that area to bury waste. In this case, the waste would be entombed in boroscilicate glass prior to being buried.

Hmm, well assuming Law of the sea could be altered, subduction zone burial is no easy task, and the cost of drilling and emplacement of canisterised waste in such could easily be in hundred of millions, and the nearest such zone is off Alaska , so we cannot provide domestic solution here.

Also, there is cratonic or stable geological terrane in Ireland that could be said to be stable for the million years required for safe storage. Ireland is prone to ice ages, high and fluctuating water tables and is geologically quite young and not really tectonically quiescent

Nuclear seems like the magic bullet to energy problems, but in reality, there is a whole load of nasty hidden charges that come in the fine print. And is not as reliable as you might think, due to the high amount of safety features of Nuke plants ( and with good cause) there is a lot more reasons for shut down than a standard thermal plant. A good mix of renewables - wind, wave, tidal , and if possible for irish geology - geothermal. This when mixed with some microgeneration, smart metering, supergrids ( all of which we will see in the next 20 years) , and increased domestic efficiency will make us energy independent and leaves fission power as a failed dream of the 1950's, where it should stay.