Another wind electricity generation record today

probe

At 12h30 Friday, the country was producing 892 MW of wind energy - about 21% of total electricity demand at that time.

One of the factors behind this record is that much of the wind generation capacity in Ireland is concentrated in the North West of the country, and it was particularly windy in that area at the time.

Ireland could easily accommodate ten times as many windmills - onshore and offshore, and one would hardly notice them. They need to be spread more evenly around the country to maximise continuity of supply of wind energy.

While producing 9 GW (ie 10 x the current installed base capacity) the country would have about 4 GW to export at peak demand time. Much more during offpeak demand periods. And/or to charge up electric/hybrid car batteries - replacing imported oil (which costs about €6 billion pa in imports). Eliminating/reducing CO2 and all the other tailpipe pollutants + reducing traffic noise.

Mothman

Any figures for 6th Dec 2008, and how much wind energy contributed towards electricity demand?

BendiBus

Mothman wrote: »

Any figures for 6th Dec 2008, and how much wind energy contributed towards electricity demand?

Not much. You'll need to select the date yourself.

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=Wind+Generation+Curve&TreeLinkModID=1451&TreeLinkItemID=247

probe

I’m sure Mothman did not simply pick 6.12.08 out of random curiosity!

Wind is probably the most predictable element of the weather in forecasting terms in Ireland. Most days they can’t predict when and where the sun will be shining or where it will be raining, but wind levels are predictable with good accuracy, usually many days in advance.

http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/medium/deterministic/

The English botanist David Bellamy is continuously waging a loud mouthed campaign against wind energy on the grounds of his perceived need for “spinning reserve” to match wind generation plant. One suspects that he is ideologically prejudiced against wind energy, rather than speaking from an expert knowledge of electricity generation systems, which does not appear to be his field.

A combination of diversity of location of windmills (on and offshore, in all parts of the country), combined with grid interconnectivity with other countries (essential for backup and exporting the net surplus which would arise if the industry was allowed to develop to its full potential), and diversity with other renewable energy systems (eg wave, tidal, solar, hydro, and pumped storage) would minimise the need for replacing old thermal generation plant to act as backup.

The ESB is committing its financial capacity (which derives directly from Ireland's high priced electricity - the most expensive in the EU) to electricity generation projects all over Europe, while the Irish grid (and its international connectivity) remains in a total mess. Not dissimilar to Aer Rianta’s (ie the so called “Dublin Airport ‘Authority’”) with its forays at Dusseldorf, Birmingham, Moscow and other airports, while leaving the Irish airports it operates in chaos for decades. Dysfunctional state agencies misbehaving as private corporations, diverting their resources anywhere and everywhere – except where they should be. Another version of the “Fás Space Challenge syndrome” in Florida!

On top of that, most of the capital investment in generation capacity continues to go into non-renewable energy plant – mostly gas burning. It would be far more energy efficient to retain the gas for direct consumption by gas users. No plan. No strategy. No direction. The system is allowed to fumble along year in, year out, consuming large amounts of scarce resources (eg money and non-renewable energy) in the process.

barnicles

Didn't feel =very windy.

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

I’m sure Mothman did not simply pick 6.12.08 out of random curiosity!

I'm sure he didn't. I was hoping he'd expand on his views rather than just thank me! (Did he think his point was proved?)

It's true most people don't realise how predictable wind is. Many people think it's necessary to keep other stations churning away just in case the wind suddenly stops, when in fact it's often possible to give advance warning of days that alternative (to wind) sources will be required.

ESB like all other commercial semi-states is told on one hand to be commercial while on the other is subject to political interference so I'm not sure I can agree with your criticism of them or DAA (off topic - I've no problems as a regular user of Dublin airport)

ESB has been told to reduce it's dominance of domestic generation (the political imperative). Replacing existing plant with new renewable plant probably doesn't stack up commercially compared to building or running gas fired plants in England or Spain or wherever (the commercial imperative). I can't see how they could come to any other conclusion.

silverharp

Lets be honest Ireland tends to be a follower in these situations and as we are stuck with self serving semi states we will probably have to wait to see the UK or Europe adopt these technologies in large number before we do. In a way this is ok , I wouldnt trust a gov R&D drive in this area as they would find a way of wasting the money with little return
Eventually a clear winner in storage will emerge and if the schemes are profitable as they should be then Irish or foreign capital should move in and develop the industry, to paraphrase gerry , the wind and waves havnt gone away you know:)

Heroditas

probe wrote: »

Wind is probably the most predictable element of the weather in forecasting terms in Ireland. Most days they can’t predict when and where the sun will be shining or where it will be raining, but wind levels are predictable with good accuracy, usually many days in advance.

http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/medium/deterministic/

It may indeed be the most predictable of the elements here but that doesn't mean it's extremely accurate either.
There have been a few occasions in the last while where the pool price has jumped to over €900 per MWhr due to the wind suddenly dropping or even rising too much.

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

ESB like all other commercial semi-states is told on one hand to be commercial while on the other is subject to political interference so I'm not sure I can agree with your criticism of them or DAA (off topic - I've no problems as a regular user of Dublin airport)

ESB has been told to reduce it's dominance of domestic generation (the political imperative). Replacing existing plant with new renewable plant probably doesn't stack up commercially compared to building or running gas fired plants in England or Spain or wherever (the commercial imperative). I can't see how they could come to any other conclusion.

1) If ESB can’t make money generating wind energy – which typically costs about 6c per kW, with their sky high 16c + VAT selling price, there is something seriously wrong somewhere in the setup. The cost of gas will be rising constantly into the future - green renewable energy from wind, wave, tidal and hydro has no fuel cost. Countries with large scale renewable energy sources have cheap stable energy prices - which is a long term competitive advantage. My electricity costs me around 9c per kW including VAT on the continent - it comes from hydro and incineration of waste. The price hasn't changed in at least seven years. ESB electricity has continuously risen in price over the same period, and is now about 18c including vat per kW. Using gas to generate electricity is bad because of conversion loses, bad because of inflation risk, bad because the gas won't last forever and bad because it is stalling investment in green energy systems. If we say for the sake of argument that the Irish market is 5 GW in capacity terms, and every so often a new 400 MW gas plant is added, there will be no room for alternative energy providers. Ultimately we will have an energy crisis like the current financial crisis, and it will be very painful. While prudent people will keep saving for a rainy day, it is impossible for an individual or family to build up a nest egg of energy in an energy bank account for a rainy day!

In any event, my main point is that the ESB’s business now is that of a network company – rather than a generator, and they should be using their financial resources to ready the network for two way flows to and from customers, a more decentralised generation system, and network interconnectivity with neighbouring countries. Denmark is away ahead of Ireland (despite having a poorer wind resource compared with IRL) and has about 4 GW of interconnection capacity with Norway, Sweden and Germany. Ireland has no connection with any other country, aside from the two tin cans connected by a piece of string across the frontier with Northern Ireland.

2) Being “commercial” doesn’t mean that a state enterprise needs to or should engage in business outside the state. The ESB was set-up under law 27 of 1927 – “to control, co-ordinate, and improve the supply distribution, and sale of electricity generally in Saorstát Eireann and for the purposes of such control, co-ordination, and improvement to exercise and employ the powers conferred on the Board by this Act”. Operating electricity generating plants in Britain and Spain is ultra vires that particular founding law, and the company’s neglect of the distribution network over the past 20 years or so could be interpreted as a failure to comply with its provisions too.

While perhaps one could call Aer Lingus a "semi-state" corporation, because it has outside shareholders and a stock market listing, the ESB is a state controlled company.

Heroditas

http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0327/esb.html


Also, currently renewable energy is not as economically viable CURRENTLY compared to the "traditional" methods still used in this country. It's a gradual change and will eventually come.

However, for the time being, gas powered electricity generation will remain the cheapest form of electricity in this country.

Wind farms are being built and as good as they are, they are not the full answer. Gas powered power stations are still a "necessary evil", unless massive hydro electricity systems can be built (not really feasible with our rivers).

Also Probe ..... do you know how much electricity costs per kWhr when generated by gas? I do ....

probe

Heroditas wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0327/esb.html

That's just hogwash propaganda stuff - I'll believe it when I see it delivered. In the meantime all I know is that they are frittering "stolen money" (ie proceeds of a monopoly as a result of a badly regulated and organised market) on Spanish and British gas plants, while OAPs in Ireland are freezing in their houses because they can't afford 18c per kW.

However, for the time being, gas powered electricity generation will remain the cheapest form of electricity in this country.

Please see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58354527&postcount=1

Wind farms are being built and as good as they are, they are not the full answer. Gas powered power stations are still a "necessary evil", unless massive hydro electricity systems can be built (not really feasible with our rivers).

There are zillions of MW of conventional capacity in Ireland. I'm not suggesting that we nuke them out. Stop building new ones and start building serious international grid connectivity to export wind energy and import energy when it is required. And make the green energy generation infrastructure as diverse as possible.

Also Probe ..... do you know how much electricity costs per kWhr when generated by gas? I do ....

Of course you do Herod! "I'm an insider with a vested interested" comes across loud and clear at my end when reading your posting

Heroditas

probe wrote: »

Of course you do Herod! "I'm an insider with a vested interested" comes across loud and clear at my end when reading your posting

So the answer is that you actually don't have a clue how much conventional gas powered electricity costs to produce. :rolleyes:

probe

Heroditas wrote: »

So the answer is that you actually don't have a clue how much conventional gas powered electricity costs to produce. :rolleyes:

It depends on your gas contract, and timing. Somewhere in the range of 6 to 9c per kWh. Nearer the high end if you got locked in at a high price.

Heroditas

probe wrote: »

It depends on your gas contract, and timing. Somewhere in the range of 6 to 9c per kWh. Nearer the high end if you got locked in at a high price.

That's how much it costs for the customer to purchase the electricity - different kettle of fish to how much it costs to produce it, which is what I had asked you.

However, even at a price of 6c per kWh - same price as what wind power costs, isn't it?

Now there will be a gradual shift to renewable power over the next few years but in the meantime, the pool price will always be determined by the least efficient power plant required at any given time.
These are being gradually phased out, the ESB sold some of their older/poorer ones to Endesa a few months ago and these will be phased out in the next few years.

However, the actual cost of building wind farms is ghastly compared to high efficiency power stations and until the cost of wind farm production & more importantly, maintenance, drops, then their viability in this country is limited.

We could go out and swamp the grid with wind power in a few years but this does not necessarily mean cheap electricity. In fact, it will mean more expensive electricity for a number of years.
You were commenting on the fuel poor in another of your posts. They'll be even poorer if wind power is exclusively used (AT THE MOMENT).
Although electricity costs anywhere in the region of 6c to 9c per kWh for those who negotiate at that price (quite a limited number it may be added in the greater scheme of energy users in this country), they can pay the same price again in distribution charges. The grid needs massive investment and this is all part of the plan to have a top class grid, smart meters rolled out and interconnectors between here and the UK.
The regulator has still to decide on the interconnector between Ireland and Wales but I would imagine there will be massive lobbying from the likes of SSE/Airtricity to get it up and running.

Instead, focus on the private energy companies. There is a large amount of renewable power coming on stream and by 2010 the ESB will only be generating 40% of the power consumed in this country.

We're still a long way behind Europe with our electricity infrastructure but I am fully confident it will be up to scratch within the next ten years.

Oldtree

I was saddened to hear on the radio this am that oil was now below $40 a barrel.

If this price decline continues it must surely be the death knell for renewables for the forseeable future, in particular for a tiny country that has economies of scale that are below any serious threshold of fiscal necessity.

It appears to me that any efforts on the part of the government in this respect will just be more of the usual white elephants, leaving the tax payer with yet more hidden bills.

BendiBus

Oldtree wrote: »

I was saddened to hear on the radio this am that oil was now below $40 a barrel.

If this price decline continues it must surely be the death knell for renewables for the forseeable future, in particular for a tiny country that has economies of scale that are below any serious threshold of fiscal necessity.

It appears to me that any efforts on the part of the government in this respect will just be more of the usual white elephants, leaving the tax payer with yet more hidden bills.

Oil is only one part of the energy story. Even then, few people think it has a long term future at current prices.

Let me brighten up your day with news from Moscow. There's a new cartel in town.

The era of cheap gas is coming to an end, Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has told ministers from the world's major gas-exporting countries.

Putin says 'cheap gas era' ending

probe

Heroditas wrote: »

That's how much it costs for the customer to purchase the electricity - different kettle of fish to how much it costs to produce it, which is what I had asked you.

The ESB charge consumers 15.97 c / kWh for electricity (+ VAT) + fixed monthly subscription charges - not 6c.

However, even at a price of 6c per kWh - same price as what wind power costs, isn't it?

So what? You are missing the point. There is a finite amount of gas in the ground. It is getting more expensive every few years, and will continue to do so. If you permit new gas generation plants to open willy nilly, electricity producers will go for the easy option. It is much easier to get Alstom Schweiz AG (www.alstom.ch) to plonk a 400 kW gas generation plant next to an existing ESB station, with an existing gas supply infrastructure and grid connection compared with doing it the green way and fighting the planning bureaucracy to install a wind farm (or some other green energy system), and fighting with the ESB grid mafia to install a grid connection to same - while they do everything possible to delay same.

Eircom managed to keep DSL broadband out of Ireland for nearly a decade after it was available in most other countries. And they still manage to prevent carriers unbundling their loops by using similar delaying tactics, so that they still control about 95% of the DSL broadband supply in Ireland - either through direct supply or wholesale bitstream. Eircom and ESB are cut from similar cloth!

However, the actual cost of building wind farms is ghastly compared to high efficiency power stations and until the cost of wind farm production & more importantly, maintenance, drops, then their viability in this country is limited.

Which is why I proposed the bonus/malus carbon tax to help the struggling green energy companies against the short-termist gas burning merchants.

We could go out and swamp the grid with wind power in a few years but this does not necessarily mean cheap electricity. In fact, it will mean more expensive electricity for a number of years.

Over the medium/long term green energy is always cheaper than electricity generated from fuel that keeps going up in price. Irish electricity prices are proof of that.

The regulator has still to decide on the interconnector between Ireland and Wales but I would imagine there will be massive lobbying from the likes of SSE/Airtricity to get it up and running.

The regulator needs to be fired, along with certain other regulators because they are not doing their job, and this is costing the country dearly. There should be three or four interconnectors at various stages of planning / construction at this stage.

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

Over the medium/long term green energy is always cheaper than electricity generated from fuel that keeps going up in price.

Has that actually been demonstrated? Irish electricity prices are not proof.

Although your carefully worded "fuel that keeps going up in price" is a clever effort.

You can always manufacture a "fact" if you throw in enough suppositions.

"Green energy requiring a massive R&D effort, enormous development costs, high maintenance and with a limited, and often unknown, lifespan is always more expensive than reliable fossil fuel power which is falling in price"

Heroditas

BendiBus wrote: »

Has that actually been demonstrated? Irish electricity prices are not proof.

Although your carefully worded "fuel that keeps going up in price" is a clever effort.

You can always manufacture a "fact" if you throw in enough suppositions.

"Green energy requiring a massive R&D effort, enormous development costs, high maintenance and with a limited, and often unknown, lifespan is always more expensive than reliable fossil fuel power which is falling in price"

It's very easy for someone like Probe to state "facts" and be so far off the mark it's not funny.
What I love is his desire to see a carbon tax while in another post bemoaning the fact that there are so many "fuel poor" people in this country.
People like this fail to acknowledge the fact that somebody actually has to pay for all this technology and it will inevitably fall on the taxpayer.
They will whinge and moan about the lack of "green" technology but once it starts to be rolled out, they will whinge and moan about its high cost. :rolleyes:

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

Has that actually been demonstrated? Irish electricity prices are not proof.

Although your carefully worded "fuel that keeps going up in price" is a clever effort.

You can always manufacture a "fact" if you throw in enough suppositions.

"Green energy requiring a massive R&D effort, enormous development costs, high maintenance and with a limited, and often unknown, lifespan is always more expensive than reliable fossil fuel power which is falling in price"

In December 2003, ESB charged 10.75 c/kWh for domestic electricity.
In December 2008, the charge was 15.97 c/kWh.
An increase of 48.6% over five years - almost 10% per annum.

If they keep this rate of price inflation up, it will be about 24c per kWh in five years time + VAT. Hardly a stable basis on which to build a competitive economy.

Established green energy systems - eg wind and hydro are simply capital intensive. They have very low operating costs, and zero fuel costs. Interest costs are low, and will remain low for the foreseeable future, making capital intensive projects cheaper to fund. It is possible to lock-in low interest rates now for 20 to 30 years by issuing long term bonds to fund projects. There is a very strong market for bonds at the moment, due to the fall off in demand for equities.

The current drop in oil prices is short term, and is a direct result of the "cardiac arrest" that has hit the global economy. Oil prices (and all other fuel costs) will be back up with a vengeance once the global economy shows signs of emerging from its current state - due to the inevitable growth in consumption in Asia and the Middle East itself and the fall off in discovery of new oil wells.

The real cost per kWh of electricity generated by a green energy resource that doesn't require fuel inputs falls every year over its useful life. The cost per kWh rises on the other hand, typically at rates several times that of the general inflation rate, in electricity generation systems which are fuelled by hydrocarbon sources.

When you are funding a new power station, or planning for a national economy, short-term falls in oil prices are irrelevant. What matters is the input costs over the 30 odd year life of the project.

There are no R&D costs with wind energy, you buy the latest kit on the market at a fixed price, and that's it. Its expected useful life is well established. Any R&D involved in creating the product is built into the price of the equipment. As for wave and tidal energy, while they are less mature, the waves and the tides keep flowing. The La Rance tidal power plant in Brittany has been operational for over 40 years, and still keeps working away. It cost €94 million to build, and today produces €94 million worth of electricity at ESB prices every year (600 M kW/h)! It is controlled remotely from an EdF grid management centre, and the maintenance costs are minimal and predictable.

While wave energy still needs some time and money to mature, its current situation reflects the fact that it has been starved of R&D funding. It is not unlike the drug and health industry. They put billions into developing drugs and diagnostic systems for various illnesses - many of which are caused by inappropriate diet - because there is big money to be made on drugs (in the same way as there is big money in oil and gas). In Ireland alone, the HSE has a budget of over €14 billion per annum. One wonders how much they spend teaching school children and parents (many of whom are obese) the benefits of healthy eating? At most a few "quid".

It seems to me that several posters to this thread haven't a clue what they are talking about, and they are just spamming the thread in a silly attempt to protect some vested interests....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_tidal_power_plant

Oldtree

That was very interesting about Rance. One has to wonder at the presentation by green government figures of tidal energy as a new arena and the need for huge investment in the r&d of wave power, when clearly there is no need for the r&d! Just a little jaunt across a small pond for a look see. It would appear thet vested interests are being protected from on high, yet again.

The disappearance of the sand eels was worrying though.

BendiBus

Oldtree wrote: »

That was very interesting about Rance. One has to wonder at the presentation by green government figures of tidal energy as a new arena and the need for huge investment in the r&d of wave power, when clearly there is no need for the r&d! Just a little jaunt across a small pond for a look see. It would appear thet vested interests are being protected from on high, yet again.

The disappearance of the sand eels was worrying though.

There are few places in the world where tidal barrages can be effective. Rance is one. There's a proposal for a larger one across the Severn in the UK. However the ecological and financial costs aren't at all clear. The Severn barrage could supply up to 5% (I think) of current UK electricity reuqirements but, according to an official investigation (I'll see if I can dig up a reference), the cost per KWh is likely to be much higher than other forms of renewables. I don't know if any suitable locations have been identified in Ireland.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53278

However, in terms of tidal power, ESB & Ireland, here's another option

http://lowerfootprint.com/ireland-launching-worlds-first-tidal-power-scheme/

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

In December 2003, ESB charged 10.75 c/kWh for domestic electricity.
In December 2008, the charge was 15.97 c/kWh.
An increase of 48.6% over five years - almost 10% per annum.

To prove that's caused by using fossil fuel instead of renewables, tell me what would electricity cost now if renewables generated most of our electricity?

Established green energy systems - eg wind and hydro are simply capital intensive. They have very low operating costs, and zero fuel costs. Interest costs are low, and will remain low for the foreseeable future, making capital intensive projects cheaper to fund. It is possible to lock-in low interest rates now for 20 to 30 years by issuing long term bonds to fund projects. There is a very strong market for bonds at the moment, due to the fall off in demand for equities.

The capital cost can be very significant depending on the lifespan of the project. Maintenance costs can rise as systems get older. Overall cost relative to newer systems (or older systems already paid for) may make a system uncompetitive. These possibilities drive business investment decisions.

Base rates might be low, but commercial interest rates (if you're even able to get funding) aren't necessarily low. Ditto bonds. The bond market is strong because companies have to offer a premium to get anyone to buy them.

Basic point is that investing in renewables is not a guaranteed winner.

The real cost per kWh of electricity generated by a green energy resource that doesn't require fuel inputs falls every year over its useful life.

Depends on how you account for depreciation/amortisation.

The cost per kWh rises on the other hand, typically at rates several times that of the general inflation rate, in electricity generation systems which are fuelled by hydrocarbon sources.

Evidence?

There are no R&D costs with wind energy, you buy the latest kit on the market at a fixed price, and that's it.

But as you state a couple of lines later, you actually do pay for the R&D when you buy the product.

The La Rance tidal power plant in Brittany has been operational for over 40 years, and still keeps working away. It cost €94 million to build, and today produces €94 million worth of electricity at ESB prices every year (600 M kW/h)! It is controlled remotely from an EdF grid management centre, and the maintenance costs are minimal and predictable.

La Rance is an exception in that it can't be replicated just anywhere. I'm not aware of a suitable site in Ireland. Although maybe there is one?

While wave energy still needs some time and money to mature, its current situation reflects the fact that it has been starved of R&D funding.

Who should be providing the funding?

Irish companies are leading the way in marine energy. www.wavebob.com www.openhydro.com www.finavera.com (originated in Ireland at least)

It seems to me that several posters to this thread haven't a clue what they are talking about, and they are just spamming the thread in a silly attempt to protect some vested interests....

I don't know if I'm included but if I have a vested interest then it's in renewables as that's where I try to invest. However this means I require evidence rather than opinion dressed up as fact.

I actually agree that renewables are the way to go but I'm fearful of the historic route to failure which is to over-promise and under-deliver.

baldieman

A large danish wind turbine manufacture established a manufacturing base in China some years ago, with the intention of supplying the western market.
As it turned out, every turbine produced has stayed in China.
There the quickest and cheapest way of adding to their grid.

Oldtree

BendiBus, I would be very interested to know where you have invested and why.

I want to learn more, and have learned a lot from the opinions of all the contributers to these threads.

Heroditas

probe wrote: »

Established green energy systems - eg wind and hydro are simply capital intensive. They have very low operating costs, and zero fuel costs.

Wind power still has high costs due to regular maintenance work and the relative complexity of the more efficient turbines. The simple fact is that wind power at the moment is still more expensive than conventional fossil power. Building in the costs of regular maintenance, the life cycle of the turbines, the fact that it is not guaranteed to generate power 100% of the time when it's up and running, the need for peaking plants to compensate when they're not running and the simple economic facts dictate that it is a very expensive technology

probe wrote: »

One wonders how much they spend teaching school children and parents (many of whom are obese) the benefits of healthy eating? At most a few "quid".

Hilarious when followed with:

probe wrote: »

It seems to me that several posters to this thread haven't a clue what they are talking about, and they are just spamming the thread in a silly attempt to protect some vested interests....

BendiBus

Oldtree wrote: »

BendiBus, I would be very interested to know where you have invested and why.

I want to learn more, and have learned a lot from the opinions of all the contributers to these threads.

At the moment I'm only involved in a couple of new energy funds which spread the risk across a wide range of companies & technologies.

There are a few reasons for this. Firstly I don't have enough money to invest in a wide enough portfolio of individual shares. Secondly, large funds can sometimes make investments in unlisted companies, which sometimes can have an interesting new product. Thirdly, there are so many options and so many companies in this space I just don't have the time to do all the research I'd like. Finally, a lot of activity takes place in new companies which are all ideas and no sales. They are highly speculative, similar to the dot com era. Some will turn out to be huge successes. Others will go to the wall with investors losing everything. I can't tell which is which. I don't think anybody can. This is why I sometimes post with a slightly negative tone on some threads. Most ideas will fail. It's a simple fact of business. Not all great ideas result in great products. And even if a great idea does result in something great, it's not always those with the original idea who get the return. Companies can do all the R&D and run out of money before getting their product to market. Someone else then runs with the idea and gets all the reward. All scary stuff for investors. Not the place to put the kids college fund!

But by keeping myself informed, reading newspapers, books, blogs, and even message boards, I hope to occasionally spot a company/technology with potential before the wider market sees it.

As regards technologies I think have the best future (in terms of return on investment in a reasonable timescale) I'd have to go for onshore wind turbines, battery storage and plug-in hybrid vehicles. They are either fully commercially viable, or almost there. They can be incrementally developed and don't require a brand new infrastructure to be installed overnight. They are easily accepted by the public. On their own, each has it's own merits. However, put them together and the 3 work perfectly to enhance each others viability. I'm sure that's been discussed on other threads here.

The problem from an investing POV, is that the companies most likely to control these technologies are existing mega-companies such as GE, or difficult to access companies in places like China.

But currently, there are a few large wind turbine companies quoted on western stock exchanges. And not surprisingly these make up a significant percentage of the funds I hold.

Sorry if this is a rambling post. I haven't really tried to structure it. It's just random points as they entered my head.

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

To prove that's caused by using fossil fuel instead of renewables, tell me what would electricity cost now if renewables generated most of our electricity?

The cost per kWh delivered at any point in time depends on when the infrastructure was built, and the cost of fuel, if any consumed – among other factors. I get my electricity from hydro and incineration of our waste and waste clean wood, and it has remained at about 9c per kWh for the past seven years or so. Including VAT. Fossilized ESB output costs about twice this amount. The price and availability and security of supply of fossil fuels have been going in the wrong direction from the consumers’ perspective for some time – at least since 1973, and the trend has been escalating as demand increases, and hedge funds play speculative games with the petroleum industry. Aside from the fact that gas and oil supplies are quickly running out, and even dirty coal reserves appear to have been grossly overstated – aside from the difficulty of getting people to work as coal miners in 2009.

The capital cost can be very significant depending on the lifespan of the project. Maintenance costs can rise as systems get older. Overall cost relative to newer systems (or older systems already paid for) may make a system uncompetitive. These possibilities drive business investment decisions.

Waffle! I have yet to see “our windfarm is broken again” stories. “We can’t afford a new blade or gearbox part or" ...... Evidence please. The reason I mentioned the tidal system at La Rance was due to its age and the low cost per kWh delivered (1.8c per kWh) – cheaper than nuclear (where most of the costs are swept under the carpet for future generations to discover and deal with).

Base rates might be low, but commercial interest rates (if you're even able to get funding) aren't necessarily low. Ditto bonds. The bond market is strong because companies have to offer a premium to get anyone to buy them.

Utility type businesses have no problem raising bond finance, because they offer a stable cash flow. Bond yields have fallen. In a recession people can do without a new car, new clothes, a new house, etc – but they do need food and electricity. While people can trade down to cheaper food and eating out less, most people can’t do without lighting, heating, and power for their everyday business. EdF bonds are currently yielding just over 3%.

Basic point is that investing in renewables is not a guaranteed winner.

Nothing is guaranteed absolutely in this world we live in. When the wind stops blowing permanently, wind farms will have a big problem. When the sun stops shining, solar energy farms will be out of business – as will everything else.

Depends on how you account for depreciation/amortisation.

How one accounts for depreciation / amortization is irrelevant. If you invest €100 million in a wind farm with an expected life of 25 years, your write-off of capital will be €100 million max. Of course you could write off everything in the first year, and make a €100 million + loss in that year, but you would have fat profits in years 2 ... 25 with no depreciation expense. Please stop insulting peoples’ intelligence!

But as you state a couple of lines later, you actually do pay for the R&D when you buy the product.

So what? When you buy a new car, you pay for the R&D that went into the car, but you don’t care. You just want to know what the price of the car is. That is your cost. The price of the glass, engine, transmission system, tyres, etc is irrelevant. As is the share of R&D cost amortized into the car’s retail price. Your gas turbine, oil or coal burning generation system also has R&D and all these other replacement costs – no doubt a lot more than a simple turbine turned by wind or water movement.

La Rance is an exception in that it can't be replicated just anywhere. I'm not aware of a suitable site in Ireland. Although maybe there is one?

The only reason I mentioned La Rance in this thread (as stated above - but seems to be worth REPEATING!) is by way of a simple example of how long green energy projects can deliver electricity, and how dirt cheap their output becomes with the passage of time. The direct opposite to fuel based generation systems.

Who should be providing the funding?

There would appear to be a queue of investors interested in green energy projects. It offers a far better prospect of a stable return compared with a brain dead property speculation. And even if there weren’t any interested parties, it would be a far better use of government borrowing power for the ESB to invest in green energy projects (including HVDC interconnectors with other countries) compared with other less productive deployments of national financial capacity.

I don't know if I'm included but if I have a vested interest then it's in renewables as that's where I try to invest. However this means I require evidence rather than opinion dressed up as fact.

I actually agree that renewables are the way to go but I'm fearful of the historic route to failure which is to over-promise and under-deliver.

Forgive me, but you come across as being a tad "schizophrenic" if you are someone who invests their money in green energy and posts some of the stuff one has seen on this thread! But you do say that you “try to invest” – so perhaps you are playing games with words!

The wind energy potential of Ireland is quite easy to model given the track record of the limited installed base of plant at this point in time. Met Eireann has detailed data on wind speeds over every few km2 of land in Ireland from its HIRLAM model. It is possible to extrapolate the economic contribution from 10x, 20x etc the current installed base of wind farm capacity on and offshore, taking into consideration the cost of HVDC connectivity to export / import electricity and the market prices available for electricity in neighbouring countries at various times of the day. France has large capacity interconnections with Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, etc and has exchanged power in both directions with these countries for many years. The variables are quantifiable.

While France is stuffed to the gills with nuclear power kit at present, the powers that be know that nuclear fuel supplies are running out and plan to get renewable energy supplying 23% of France’s electricity within 11 years from now.

The risks are manageable. I’m not suggesting that Ireland goes 100% green energy overnight. It is an incremental process over time. It just needs to be put on a solid footing, and the hydrocarbon vested interests kept at bay from choking off initiatives. While I expect that there will be a substantial increase in business insolvencies in Ireland over the next few months, I would be surprised if wind farm operators or their suppliers (eg Vestas) will be facing the same difficulties!

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

Forgive me, but you come across as being a tad "schizophrenic" if you are someone who invests their money in green energy and posts some of the stuff one has seen on this thread! But you do say that you “try to invest” – so perhaps you are playing games with words!

Not being schizophrenic. As already stated, I just get frustrated at unsubstantiated claims which have the effect of over-promising. So I challenge them, even if I sometimes agree with them!

The risks are manageable. I’m not suggesting that Ireland goes 100% green energy overnight. It is an incremental process over time.

And as you pointed out in the very first line of this thread, wind generation reached 21% of total requirement recently. Add hydro to that, and a percentage of output from Turlough Hill (some of which was stored from green energy) and things don't look too bad.

GenericUser

Folks...time for some facts methinks.
100 % renewables is all well and good.
However, if this is wind based some serious problems arise.

(1):The main one being that the wind doesnt blow all the time.
This is a serious problem.
(2):The second one being that wind speed and direction is still extremely difficult to predict, despite historical weather information, Modern Computing and analytical techniques.

if the wind isnt blowing in the north west there is a very strong liklihood that it isnt blowing the in the south east or anywhere else in the country either. In weather terms Ireland is a small country, no/low wind, generally means no/low wind EVERYWHERE.
As an example, in early december on a weekday evening at peak time there was close to 900 MW wind production. the following day at exactly the same time, there was less than 30.

It is necessary to have a back up for wind. In fact it is necessary to have a back up for any generation plant in the country, be it wind, coal, gas or oil fueled. In the short to medium term the back up for wind will be provided by gas fired combined cycle gas plant and a smattering of less efficient open cycle gas fired plant.
As previously mentioned pumped storage is a method of storing energy. The pumped storage plant in Turlough Hill is an excellent source of stored energy (reserve), however, the question needs to be asked, how many suitable sites are there in Ireland to build another turlough hill?

These are the simple facts of the matter.

probe

GenericUser wrote: »

Folks...time for some facts methinks.
100 % renewables is all well and good.
However, if this is wind based some serious problems arise.

(1):The main one being that the wind doesnt blow all the time.
This is a serious problem.
(2):The second one being that wind speed and direction is still extremely difficult to predict, despite historical weather information, Modern Computing and analytical techniques.

if the wind isnt blowing in the north west there is a very strong liklihood that it isnt blowing the in the south east or anywhere else in the country either. In weather terms Ireland is a small country, no/low wind, generally means no/low wind EVERYWHERE.
As an example, in early december on a weekday evening at peak time there was close to 900 MW wind production. the following day at exactly the same time, there was less than 30.

It is necessary to have a back up for wind. In fact it is necessary to have a back up for any generation plant in the country, be it wind, coal, gas or oil fueled. In the short to medium term the back up for wind will be provided by gas fired combined cycle gas plant and a smattering of less efficient open cycle gas fired plant.
As previously mentioned pumped storage is a method of storing energy. The pumped storage plant in Turlough Hill is an excellent source of stored energy (reserve), however, the question needs to be asked, how many suitable sites are there in Ireland to build another turlough hill?

These are the simple facts of the matter.

Pumped storage is not enough. You need grid interconnection with other countries. (a) to export the surplus wind generated electricity. (b) to provide a supply when the wind isn't blowing for a prolonged period. ie when the available pumped storage runs out of water at the top of the hill! By linking into the European grid, Ireland becomes part of a big country with wind, solar, and other sources of power to keep the show on the road.

BendiBus

I fully agree with probe.

D'Peoples Voice

probe wrote: »

In December 2003, ESB charged 10.75 c/kWh for domestic electricity.
In December 2008, the charge was 15.97 c/kWh.
An increase of 48.6% over five years - almost 10% per annum.

Post Number 9 by neiljung
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=17711&start=15

Common misconception that, but when a lie gets repeated enough folk tend to believe it. The reason for the sudden huge increases and the previous low prices for leccy in Ireland all come down to governmental irresponsibility.

There was no rise in the price of electricty in Ireland between 1986 and 2000ish. The ESB take was even worse than that as the VAT level was increased and ESB absorbed the rise. Now I don't know what the combined inflation over that period was but in real terms prices went absolutely thru the floor. The reason why? Minister for energy set the price and obvoiusly no-one wanted to be the lad to do the right thing, what with some bad headlines coming your way shortly afterwards. The result? The Irish network was run into the ground, everyone still got paid and the lights were kept on just about, but no upgardes/improvements to cater for increasing demand took place and necessary maintenance ignored. Come 2000ish the whole system was in very very dangerous condition and most regions of the country in a dangerous state with ageing inadequately sized infrastructure. Around this time the CER (energy regulator) was set up, mostly due to the need to comply with EU laws. One of its first new duties to set electricity prices. Now looking at the state of the system and the need to keep the lights on in a safe manner and cater for ever increasing demand the regulator sanctioned huge price increases. Obviously every politico could wash their hands of it and rail against the regulator due to a problem they themselves created. It's because of all this that €5 billion had to be spent in the past decade on refurbishment.

Yes, Irish prices should be lower but all things being equal our prices have to be dearer than elsewhere due to a small island population (poor economies of scale), the very dispersed nature of Irish houses (need ing more wires to be built and maintained) and the lack of both nuclear and cheap easy to get hydro power compared to some of our neighbours.

Does anyone agree?