Is grant aiding Wind as a source of Energy a massive con-job?

ircoha

from http://www.windaction.org/

based on this extract

......In conclusion, it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation.

It seems like the case is well made that the product is way over sold.

dhaslam

In the US peak demand for electricity is in the summer for air conditioning. Obviously this situation does not arise here. The main demands are in winter for light, heat and cooking as well as industrial use. Because wind speeds are higher in winter production matched demand more closely. Periods of high pressure in winter, typically in December are a problem because there can be several days at a time with no wind. These periods will have to be covered by standby generators but at least the weather is reasonably predictable.

Spain seems to be the leader in wind energy and in areas there is nearly 100% of demant met by wind generation and hydro.

This piece is a few years old, not sure what the current situation is.
www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=35745

Capt'n Midnight

dhaslam wrote:

Periods of high pressure in winter, typically in December are a problem because there can be several days at a time with no wind. These periods will have to be covered by standby generators but at least the weather is reasonably predictable.

pumped storage and tidal too

another way of cutting demand is to give companies rebates for not using electricity though in the north of England there are some companies who make more money by not using electricity than by manufacturing stuff

great unwashed

I had a look at the page link posted by the original poster but couldn't find the quote he quoted on his post as support for the 'con-job' view of grant-aiding turbines.

They don't reduce carbon emissions because they slow the increase of carbon emissions instead as our world demands more energy and electricity. If there were no wind-farms, the demand would be supplied by high-carbon technology thus the amount of CO2 would be higher. Maybe I just don't understand your post but turbines are helping massively and should be made to help more.

http://www.windaction.org/news/12557

The link above I found on the site you quoted. circa 100 turbine wind farm getting built by UK gov in irish sea near cumbria. it will supply electricity for 360,000 homes. Not bad eh?

ircoha

great unwashed wrote: »

I had a look at the page link posted by the original poster but couldn't find the quote he quoted on his post as support for the 'con-job' view of grant-aiding turbines.

They don't reduce carbon emissions because they slow the increase of carbon emissions instead as our world demands more energy and electricity. If there were no wind-farms, the demand would be supplied by high-carbon technology thus the amount of CO2 would be higher. Maybe I just don't understand your post but turbines are helping massively and should be made to help more.

http://www.windaction.org/news/12557

The link above I found on the site you quoted. circa 100 turbine wind farm getting built by UK gov in irish sea near cumbria. it will supply electricity for 360,000 homes. Not bad eh?

The point is that conventional, open-cycle , flexible but inefficient power plant will need to be on standby to cater for when the wind does not blow.
There is a CO2 cost associated with this, even at the build stage.

See http://www.eirgrid.ie/EirgridPortal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=System%20Records&TreeLinkModID=1451&TreeLinkItemID=9

for when the max demaind was and there was no wind on 19th Dec 2006 [http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54381149#post54381149 ]

Have a peep at this http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR0612_web.pdf

probe

ircoha wrote: »

The point is that conventional, open-cycle , flexible but inefficient power plant will need to be on standby to cater for when the wind does not blow.
There is a CO2 cost associated with this, even at the build stage.

Green energy is one of the few areas where globalization is green. i.e. Ireland must be substantially connected to the mainland continental electricity grid to make wind and other green energy work well while hydrogen and battery technologies mature and gain market share. By substantially, I mean similar to Denmark’s connections to neighbouring countries.

In 20 odd years time, there will probably be enough storage in Ireland in battery and hydrogen (among other) networks to keep the show on the road when the wind isn’t blowing. Assuming that is, the legacy carbon vested interests in Ireland don’t manage to screw things up. If that is permitted to happen, the country is heading for a dark energy future – with sky high prices, Kyoto taxes, shortages, and leaving itself open to the more unstable geographic areas of the planet. Not to mention the huge investment in conventional power plants to back-up wind – which will be lying idle much of the time because it won’t be able to compete with low wind energy costs.

After that hiatus period, Ireland could be a net exporter of electricity to the rest of Europe over the same infrastructure. The other key element of course is diversification. The country can and will run without a single coal, gas or oil fired generation plant – not to mention nuclear in time.

Iceland has turned itself into a sustainable green energy electric economy with energy intensive industries lining up to set-up business there. There is no reason why Ireland can’t do the same.

.probe


http://gullhver.os.is/website/hpf/orkustofnun%5Fenglish%5Fnetscape/viewer.htm
or
http://gullhver.os.is/website/hpf/orkustofnun_english [voleish]

Hoagy

probe wrote: »

.
Iceland has turned itself into a sustainable green energy electric economy with energy intensive industries lining up to set-up business there. There is no reason why Ireland can’t do the same.

.probe

No hot springs, for a start.

ircoha

probe wrote: »

....Green energy is one of the few areas where globalization is green. i.e. Ireland must be substantially connected to the mainland continental electricity grid to make wind and other green energy work well while hydrogen and battery technologies mature and gain market share. By substantially, I mean similar to Denmark’s connections to neighbouring countries.....

Fine in theory but due to our geographic location, the connecting will be via the UK and when the cruch comes they will not pass the power thriugh to us if they need it.
Remember they starved us during the famine, so they will do the same with the electricity and the gas when the shortage comes.

We need a connection to France, now I wonder can I get a solicitors undertaking to finance that link, which is too long anyway so we need to go nuclear.

probe

ircoha wrote: »

Fine in theory but due to our geographic location, the connecting will be via the UK and when the cruch comes they will not pass the power thriugh to us if they need it.
Remember they starved us during the famine, so they will do the same with the electricity and the gas when the shortage comes.

We need a connection to France, now I wonder can I get a solicitors undertaking to finance that link, which is too long anyway so we need to go nuclear.

France <> Ireland grid connections are well within economic range. The NorNed grid connection between Norway and Netherlands is longer than say Cork to Roscoff (580 km).

Cost about €600 for 700 MW capacity. Can be done at European rather than rip-off Irish prices because the entire job can be outsourced outside of Ireland. No planning permission delays. A much better investment than contributing a similar sum to the Kyoto CO2 bureaucracy in the form of a "fine" or buying CO2 emission rights on the market (neither of which achieve anything other than political hot air cr**).


http://www.abb.com/cawp/gad02181/8c5558c304d0eb13c1256f77003a33a1.aspx


.probe