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

Spirit of Ireland - A bright spark in today's economic gloom?

Options
1111214161725

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Dan Jaman wrote: »
    Typical NIMBY hatchet job and just as full of speculation and wild-arsed guesswork as the most tree-hugging greeny.

    Can I flood your backyard with saltwater??


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,219 ✭✭✭✭Dan Jaman


    mgmt wrote: »
    Can I flood your backyard with saltwater??
    For a fee, yes.
    Вашему собственному бычьему дерьму нельзя верить - V Putin
    




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    luohaoran wrote: »
    What upset me about the program was that despite making the point several times that they could not determine how much of the cost of the grid update, or the inter-connectors, was down solely to the development of wind energy, they still chose to take the total cost as their figure.

    The interconnectors are the result of the wind power plan.
    I think one point which is possibly the most important one is the difference between generating your own electricity and importing it.



    ... of the difference between growing your own and importing.

    Do I need to explain that concept??

    How many Irish people profit from every 100 euro of imported fuel?
    Or to put it another way, how much of the 100 euro goes into the Irish economic engine?
    If I pay an oil producing country 100 euro for a unit of oil, he puts the whole damn lot into his pocket, and heads straight back to his own country to spend it. With some luck , he might buy an Irish steak and return something to us, but it isn't going to help us all that much really.


    If I pay Paddy , down the road, I can afford to pay him as much as 199 euro, for the same unit of energy and I, (I being Ireland inc) have only lost 99 euro. And its only lost if Paddy spends half of his 199 outside the country.


    There is no wind turbine industry in Ireland. We have to import. We will still need to import fuel into Ireland because wind power produces next to nothing most of the time.

    Wind power = higher electricity prices = higher costs of doing business = business leaving the country = higher unemployment


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Dan Jaman wrote: »
    For a fee, yes.

    And what about the groudwater table, that your neighbour uses for his water supply?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Dan Jaman wrote: »
    Typical NIMBY hatchet job and just as full of speculation and wild-arsed guesswork as the most tree-hugging greeny.

    Hey at least they tried to do some maths with what little information is available

    Unfortunately SoI have not provided anyone with much in the way of figures, just a sales pitch :(


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    I can't believe people are still being suckered in with this nonsense. I agree with a previous comment that Prime Time wasn't hard enough on wind power. We are all going to pay subsidy on our electrcity bills so that can be passed onto people setting up wind farms that will never produce enough energy to make any difference. But they will get rich off it.

    As for SOI, it's never going to happen. It was always insane. Consider this: SOI stated that the wind turbines required would take up the 1% of the landmass of Ireland. Others have suggested it would be 3%. That's a lot of land. But wait, all those turbines would be concentrated on the west coast. In other words anyone living in the west would never be out of sight of one of those things. It would be wall to wall turbines in one of the most beautiful areas of the country. Not to mention those dammed up river valleys.

    For a so called 'green' idea it's an ecological disaster in the making and a massive white elephant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,219 ✭✭✭✭Dan Jaman


    mgmt wrote: »
    And what about the groudwater table, that your neighbour uses for his water supply?
    Who says I have neighbours? Who says my backyard isn't a seaside glen?
    Strikes me there's a flood of NIMBY tosspots suddenly invading this thread - I wonder who set that up?
    Вашему собственному бычьему дерьму нельзя верить - V Putin
    




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Dan Jaman wrote: »
    Who says I have neighbours? Who says my backyard isn't a seaside glen?
    Strikes me there's a flood of NIMBY tosspots suddenly invading this thread - I wonder who set that up?

    Yes, heres hoping you live by yourself on your own little island.


  • Registered Users Posts: 86 ✭✭luohaoran


    mgmt wrote: »
    The interconnectors are the result of the wind power plan.

    Actually, they are part of a Europe wide strategy to facilitate an international market for energy. I think you'll find the one they are building right now will be used with or without wind. So to charge it down as a cost of wind generation is just plain wrong.
    There is no wind turbine industry in Ireland. We have to import. We will still need to import fuel into Ireland because wind power produces next to nothing most of the time.

    Wind power = higher electricity prices = higher costs of doing business = business leaving the country = higher unemployment

    Yes, I stated same , about needing to import the turbines.
    However a significant part of the cost of installation of each turbine is building the platform to put it on.
    I don't recall the exact percentage , but I believe it was of the order of 30%.

    Your assertion that wind produces little energy most of the time, is just plain wrong.

    A suitably scaled hydrostorage solution would significantly reduce the need for backup. Thus making electricity prices cheaper and far more stable than at present = lower cost of doing business = businesses entering the country = higher employment.

    And as stated in the previous post, but clearly not taken on board by yourself is the fact that its an order of magnitude more cost effective to produce your own power than to import. To make a euro per euro comparison, only shows your complete lack of understanding of economics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    luohaoran wrote: »
    Your assertion that wind produces little energy most of the time, is just plain wrong.

    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/

    Prove me wrong
    A suitably scaled hydrostorage solution would significantly reduce the need for backup.

    And how many billions will that cost?

    Thus making electricity prices cheaper and far more stable than at present = lower cost of doing business = businesses entering the country = higher employment.

    Huh! Explain the PSO on your ESB bill. How is wind making electricity cheaper?
    And as stated in the previous post, but clearly not taken on board by yourself is the fact that its an order of magnitude more cost effective to produce your own power than to import. To make a euro per euro comparison, only shows your complete lack of understanding of economics.

    Show me a country where wind is cheaper than imported fuel???


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 86 ✭✭luohaoran


    mgmt wrote: »
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/

    Prove me wrong



    And how many billions will that cost?




    Huh! Explain the PSO on your ESB bill. How is wind making electricity cheaper?



    Show me a country where wind is cheaper than imported fuel???

    I don't need to prove anything, you have the link to the website. Go print out the last years output , add it up and divide by 365. Then we can say how much was actually produced rather than resorting to subjective description.

    How many billions. Go and read the SOI information, since you clearly haven't done so yet.

    Explain PSO? ok.
    PSO is a tax on people who can't understand why the need to buy Irish, and why a foreign euro does not equal an Irish euro. Sadly , even those of us who do understand it , have to pay the same tax. But hey, its for the common good, so I don't mind.

    Show you a country where wind is cheaper than imported fuel.
    Are you working for Saudi Arabia or what?!
    We don't produce enough of our own fuel, to make the decision not to produce our own and to buy it from abroad, is like burning money.
    Even if you have to pay double to produce it yourself, it's way smarter. Yes , even if you have to subsidise it massively, its still way smarter.

    This is the last of me repeating myself for your benefit.
    You are still ignoring my basic point. And so long as you do that, you are only shadow boxing. And thus , so am I.
    I'm done.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    There is a significant small but irritatingly vocal minority of the population of Ireland who are against ANY new development of ANY description. They masquerade as being the defenders of democracy etc but in fact they are only interested in their own narrow agenda.

    I have had personal experience of this kind of mindset and it is amazing.

    These people would presumably be happier living in caves and wearing bearskins. Frankly they need to be brushed aside now by those of us who actually care about the country and not our own narrow viewpoint for the greater good.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    professore wrote: »
    There is a significant small but irritatingly vocal minority of the population of Ireland who are against ANY new development of ANY description. They masquerade as being the defenders of democracy etc but in fact they are only interested in their own narrow agenda.

    I have had personal experience of this kind of mindset and it is amazing.

    These people would presumably be happier living in caves and wearing bearskins. Frankly they need to be brushed aside now by those of us who actually care about the country and not our own narrow viewpoint for the greater good.

    Why carve up and flood our valleys and carpet the countryside in windmills?
    when one single average nuclear plant can power the country?

    i wonder what damage all of his eco-madness will do to the tourist industry, they dont come here to look at spinning windmills


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    luohaoran wrote: »
    I don't need to prove anything, you have the link to the website. Go print out the last years output , add it up and divide by 365. Then we can say how much was actually produced rather than resorting to subjective description.

    Today wind produced a maximum output of 294MW and a minimum output of 63MW. This is out of a total installed plant of about 1500MW. On rare occasions it produces over 1000MW. The point is that you cannot rely on wind. We need constant, reliable power. Not staggered power that wind delivers. Even if we installed 10,000MW of wind power, we would still need to run our power plants non-stop. It takes days to shut down and restart large efficient power plants that deliver constant base load power.

    Explain PSO? ok.
    PSO is a tax on people who can't understand why the need to buy Irish, and why a foreign euro does not equal an Irish euro. Sadly , even those of us who do understand it , have to pay the same tax. But hey, its for the common good, so I don't mind.

    Every euro spent on wind is a waste. Irish taxpayer euros spent on this punt is criminal.

    Show you a country where wind is cheaper than imported fuel.
    Are you working for Saudi Arabia or what?!
    We don't produce enough of our own fuel, to make the decision not to produce our own and to buy it from abroad, is like burning money.
    Even if you have to pay double to produce it yourself, it's way smarter. Yes , even if you have to subsidise it massively, its still way smarter.

    Smart economies focus on what they're good at. Saudi Arabia are good at producing cheap fuel. We are good at pharmaceuticals etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    I wish we could rely on wind but sadly we can't. I've never been anti-nuclear but the need to generate our own power has made me realise that nuclear is the only way we can do this, as much as I wish we could use renewable energy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob




    apparently we have plenty of thorium deposits in the north west.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,815 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Me and ei.sdraobs have been having this debate with people who are adamant that wind energy is profitable yet cant back it up on another thread over the past few days.

    We have capacity for [url=[URL=http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_E...ms_in_Ireland/[/URL]1379MW[/url] from wind and a [url=http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_E...ng_wind_farms/[/URL]5MW wind farm would expect to cost in the region of €7-10 million[/url] and all the cost is upfront. So our current wind capacity cost us between €1.9 and €2.8billion. Today, wind only generated 1.35% of peak demand. So for ~€2.5bllion we got less than 2% of the energy needed. The most energy wind farms have ever generated is 1196MW so that means we have spent between €256million and €366million on wind turbines that have not produced any energy at all.

    Denmark has the highest cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity for the the average household in Europe. Wind accounts for nearly one-fifth of electricity generated in Denmark — the highest percentage of any country. Clearly wind power only pushes up the cost of electricity and thats before you add in the cost of the hydro storage reservoirs. Of course those promoting SOI spread these costs over a long period of time, however, in this time new technologies generating energy on demand will have developed making SOI obsolete long before the costs are recovered.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭eia340600


    Stating that Denmark have a higher electricity cost than other countries because of wind power is ridiculous.Denmark also have more expensive milk, bread, alcohol and most other things too, than other countries. In other words, it's an even more expensive country to live in OVERALL than most others-including ours.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    eia340600 wrote: »
    Stating that Denmark have a higher electricity cost than other countries because of wind power is ridiculous.Denmark also have more expensive milk, bread, alcohol and most other things too, than other countries. In other words, it's an even more expensive country to live in OVERALL than most others-including ours.

    Even with VAT removed its still MOST expensive

    and what does price of milk have to do with electricity? if anything lower electricity prices result in lower priced milk :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Even with VAT removed its still MOST expensive

    and what does price of milk have to do with electricity? if anything lower electricity prices result in lower priced milk :D

    We are busy trying to get more competitive to save the country, (decreasing the minimum wage, clinging on to our corporation tax rate etc.) but the idiots in the green party are busy putting their cronies into the state energy companies to dictate that we move to focking wind in the future. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh:mad:


    Stop this wind power madness. Stop the subsidies. Allow Ireland to return to competitiveness by having cheap energy. Lets learn from our mistakes and not buy into another unsustainable bubble.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    So our current wind capacity cost us between €1.9 and €2.8billion.

    Here is your fundamental problem. It cost 'us' nothing, most of the wind on the system was built with private money. And in 2009, renewable electricity contributed 14.1% of the electricity used.

    As I've posted elsewhere, the support scheme for renewables (REFIT) merely guarantees those generators in REFIT a price per unit of electricity produced. If they fail to produce the electricity, they do not get paid. If the wind doesn't blow, they do not get paid. If their turbines blow up or fall apart, they do not get paid. The private sector carries the risk, not the consumer, or the tax payer.

    Furthermore, and this is the important bit, REFIT is just a top up mechanism, it merely makes up the different between the market price and the stated REFIT price. So when the market price is above the REFIT price, REFIT does not add to the costs facing the consumer.

    Wind isn't perfect, and isn't a total solution, and the policies around it may need refinement - there are hidden costs in terms of having thermal plant on back up*, and there are real step changes in the marginal cost of additional units as penetrations increase (ESRI, Eirgrid and CER have done loads of research on this, and it bears a read). But demonising wind generation just because people don't like the politics associated with it (or can't stand the very ambitious plans around exports), misses the fact that it can and does work for us at present penetrations.

    *Plants generally aren't kept idling, instead they are just constrained down, so they still generate, just at a lower output. Given that these are generally gas plants, they can react very quickly. But every MW/h of gas not burnt, is a cost avoided, and a MW/h that is there tomorrow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    We are good at pharmaceuticals etc.

    You mean we're good at being a cheap production based for US companies.
    Lets learn from our mistakes and not buy into another unsustainable bubble.

    And oil and gas prices are so stable


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    Here is your fundamental problem. It cost 'us' nothing, most of the wind on the system was built with private money. And in 2009, renewable electricity contributed 14.1% of the electricity used.

    As I've posted elsewhere, the support scheme for renewables (REFIT) merely guarantees those generators in REFIT a price per unit of electricity produced. If they fail to produce the electricity, they do not get paid. If the wind doesn't blow, they do not get paid. If their turbines blow up or fall apart, they do not get paid. The private sector carries the risk, not the consumer, or the tax payer.

    Furthermore, and this is the important bit, REFIT is just a top up mechanism, it merely makes up the different between the market price and the stated REFIT price. So when the market price is above the REFIT price, REFIT does not add to the costs facing the consumer.

    Wind isn't perfect, and isn't a total solution, and the policies around it may need refinement - there are hidden costs in terms of having thermal plant on back up*, and there are real step changes in the marginal cost of additional units as penetrations increase (ESRI, Eirgrid and CER have done loads of research on this, and it bears a read). But demonising wind generation just because people don't like the politics associated with it (or can't stand the very ambitious plans around exports), misses the fact that it can and does work for us at present penetrations.

    *Plants generally aren't kept idling, instead they are just constrained down, so they still generate, just at a lower output. Given that these are generally gas plants, they can react very quickly. But every MW/h of gas not burnt, is a cost avoided, and a MW/h that is there tomorrow.

    REFIT is hiding behind the bull**** carbon levy on energy production.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    tharlear wrote: »
    You mean we're good at being a cheap production based for US companies.

    Yeah, it creates lots of jobs here and enables us to have a balance of trade surplus.
    And oil and gas prices are so stable

    Yes, more stable than wind power.


  • Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    Originally Posted by tharlear
    You mean we're good at being a cheap production based for US companies.

    Yeah, it creates lots of jobs here and enables us to have a balance of trade surplus.

    And no worries about GNP v GDP, export coca cola helps with our trade surplus but provides limited benefit to the state.

    Take off the taxes in Ireland and gas and oil movements look allot less stable.
    And being on the end of a gas line from Gasprom is the definition of stable

    While wind power is NOT the Holy Grail, it needs to be part of the solution and as we are connecting to the UK/EU grid we need to change our view of load balancing. If the wind doesn’t blow you buy from else where.

    At present we are over reliant on gas and coal, hydro is not going to get any bigger, but adding solar, wind and pump storage is one way of diversifying the supply. Build wind and pump storage up to a few % of power needs is one option worth testing. Micro power plants, home production and selling the surplus will all be part of the future

    The grid needs to be updated regardless; a smart grid system is a requirement if you want to keep those pharma and chip plants.

    Investing in a couple of snow ploughs might be a good idea as well. But then again we don't get snow in Ireland. Ireland is so good at planning for the future


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Aidan1 wrote: »
    Here is your fundamental problem. It cost 'us' nothing, most of the wind on the system was built with private money. And in 2009, renewable electricity contributed 14.1% of the electricity used.
    .


    Really? :rolleyes:


    Look at your electricity bill, see that PSO contribution? part of that is for wind

    350 million a year in direct subsidies at a time when we are borrowing money at 7%, do these provide a return greater than 7% in 10 years :rolleyes:

    and then you pay indirectly by higher electricity price, if the wind blows WIND power has to be used first NO MATTER THE COST even if the coal plant with half as cheap energy has to shut down (and in process risk damaging expensive turbines, extra wear and tear)


    My company sends hardware to continent and US directly creating and maintaining jobs in datacenters there, where electricity is a fraction of the cost of here, thats jobs that could be easily done in Ireland, but is not economical. Thats just my own personal example of how high energy prices are killing industry.

    this one way gamble using money we don't have is costing the country dearly


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    this one way gamble using money we don't have is costing the country dearly

    Now you know the real meaning of "Smart and Green" :cool:.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Now you know the real meaning of "Smart and Green" :cool:.

    Yep and not only electricity, quality bandwidth (one of our projects uses several gbits day and night) is available for an order of magnitude cheaper than here, of course the very same Eamon Grimacing Ryan would tell us that we are #1 :( while the rest of the world is moving ahead by leaps and bounds. I had a 3 fold decrease in bandwidth costs alone this year making me a tidy profit on which i had to pay 5 digit corpo tax few days ago

    I suppose next I should follow the footsteps of the "smart" economy and send the money to Bermuda Google style ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,815 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Even with VAT removed its still MOST expensive

    and what does price of milk have to do with electricity? if anything lower electricity prices result in lower priced milk biggrin.gif

    Denmarks standard VAT rate is 25% which is the same as in Hungary. Yet Denmark has almost double the energy costs as Hungary. In 2008 Hungary only had capacity for 127MW (page 8) of wind energy while while Denmark had 3,180MW from wind. As VAT is the same there is obviously a big energy tax in Denmark to cover the cost of the wind farms. Expenditure on wind energy may reduce the unit cost of electricity but increases the standing charges such that, overall, electricity is more expensive..
    Aidan1 wrote: »
    Here is your fundamental problem. It cost 'us' nothing, most of the wind on the system was built with private money. And in 2009, renewable electricity contributed 14.1% of the electricity used.

    As I've posted elsewhere, the support scheme for renewables (REFIT) merely guarantees those generators in REFIT a price per unit of electricity produced. If they fail to produce the electricity, they do not get paid. If the wind doesn't blow, they do not get paid. If their turbines blow up or fall apart, they do not get paid. The private sector carries the risk, not the consumer, or the tax payer.

    Furthermore, and this is the important bit, REFIT is just a top up mechanism, it merely makes up the different between the market price and the stated REFIT price. So when the market price is above the REFIT price, REFIT does not add to the costs facing the consumer.

    The problem with the tarriffs is they distort the market. How is giving guaranteed prices to encourage people to build wind farms that would otherwise not be viable any different to the tax breaks on property that encouraged people to build houses in the middle of nowhere that otherwise not be viable?

    You would think the government would have learned that encouraging people to invest billions of euro into an industry that is being propped up by the state only ends in a disaster. As if the property bubble didnt do enough damage they are now stoking another bubble to finish the country off once and for all. Saying that wind farms are currently being built using private money is of little comfort to me, all the development land bought up during the boom was bought using private money, but the taxpayer is now paying for it through NAMA.

    What happens when a more sustainable source of energy emerges in the next couple of decades (most likely some form of nuclear) and our wind farms become obsolete before the huge initial costs are recovered. Of course that wont matter to the private company who built the wind farm, they are guaranteed excellent rates for whatever they produce for fifteen years.
    Aidan1 wrote: »
    Wind isn't perfect, and isn't a total solution, and the policies around it may need refinement - there are hidden costs in terms of having thermal plant on back up*, and there are real step changes in the marginal cost of additional units as penetrations increase (ESRI, Eirgrid and CER have done loads of research on this, and it bears a read). But demonising wind generation just because people don't like the politics associated with it (or can't stand the very ambitious plans around exports), misses the fact that it can and does work for us at present penetrations.

    *Plants generally aren't kept idling, instead they are just constrained down, so they still generate, just at a lower output. Given that these are generally gas plants, they can react very quickly. But every MW/h of gas not burnt, is a cost avoided, and a MW/h that is there tomorrow.

    The fast-acting gas plants are far less efficient than the large baseload gas plants. They are two different technologies and two different plants. If we continue to push wind power we will probably end up buying British nuclear powered energy through the interconnector to make up for lack of wind during periods of high energy demand.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    REFIT is hiding behind the bull**** carbon levy on energy production.

    Neither the carbon tax or the carbon windfall levy have anything to do with REFIT.

    Pete, what do you have against nuclear?

    And again, wind does not have a guaranteed return, just a guaranteed price. Very different. Also, our electricity prices have more to do with our huge dependence on gas (again, over 60%) along with stuff like Peat. Of the PSO, the 14.1% of generation from renewables cost around €44m. Peat, which is about 350MW, cost way more, and spends a lot of the time broken down or out of order. It does have a guaranteed rate of return btw, which is probably where you're getting confused.


Advertisement