Another wind generation record in Ireland

Grudaire

Heroditas wrote: »

The numbers that I quoted are quite simplistic but they make more sense than the very basic numbers that SoI quote.

Here's my own basic maths.
To be "guaranteed" 1MW of power, you ideally need 3MW of wind turbines. That is the accepted figure.
Now, you have 1MW of power and you then need to fill a reservoir using pumps. You have to take transmission losses into account for the power as it travels to the pump and then you have the pump's efficiency of, say, 85% - this leaves us with about 0.8MW of power that has been transferred to the reservoir.
So we have 3MW of wind and this gives us 0.8MW of hydro.
Remember, if you're filling the reservoir, you need more wind turbines to fuel the grid for the users!
Also, it can be quite common for the wind to drop for sustained periods of time. What happens then if the reservoir is empty? It's almost a double jeopardy.

• Accepted by who? (Surely at peak a 1MW would generate 1MW?)
• Is that 1MW on average?
• If the wind drops we're relying on the resevoirs? (Which is an argument more to do with the capacity of the resvoirs..)

Mainly I want to deal with figures that I know what they mean. Lies damn lies and statistics is very very true:D

Heroditas wrote: »

Transform these figures into figures that we need for Ireland to be energy independent - we need about 6GW of hydro power. That would result in us needing 22.5GW of wind just to ensure you have enough constant coverage of wind to simply fill the reservoir as quickly as possible.
Then you need more wind turbines to supply electricity to the country while the reservoir is being filled! I've taken peak demand here and increased it a bit to take into account further growth in the electricity market.

Of course, you can use alternative sources such as the interconnector to import power to fill the reservoir but that defeats the whole concept of "energy independence".

SoI is a classic example of the law of diminishing returns. However, this time it's on a vast scale.
Some small ones like Turlough Hill may be viable but doing it on a national scale using existing technology? I don't think so.

I still think you'll need differential equations to explain this in any fair way - If you have a sh*tload of extra capacity working at even 10% potential it'll reduce the drain on the resevoirs.

Well if we're selling the stuff to the UK, surely we're allowed buy some back!

How is the law of diminishing returns relevent?

Heroditas

Cliste wrote: »

• Accepted by who? (Surely at peak a 1MW would generate 1MW?)
• Is that 1MW on average?
• If the wind drops we're relying on the resevoirs? (Which is an argument more to do with the capacity of the resvoirs..)

Mainly I want to deal with figures that I know what they mean. Lies damn lies and statistics is very very true:D

Wind generators across the whole country. 30% coverage is the accepted figure.
You're more than welcome to drop into my offices and talk to the wind power people here to discuss those figures.
Yes if you have a 1MW turbine, you'll generate 1MW but the wind does not blow all the time so the accepted industrial standard figure is 30%.
As a result, to guarantee 1MW of power, you need to have 3MW of wind generation. Sometimes you will get your full 3MW output, a lot of the time you will get 0MW. The average is 1MW.
You can't work off peak figures because the wind coverage will not always at "peak" generating capabilities.

Cliste wrote: »

I still think you'll need differential equations to explain this in any fair way - If you have a sh*tload of extra capacity working at even 10% potential it'll reduce the drain on the resevoirs.

Well if we're selling the stuff to the UK, surely we're allowed buy some back!

How is the law of diminishing returns relevent?

If we're buying electricity back, it defeats the whole claim of being "energy independent" doesn't it? The whole point of SoI is supposed to make us completely unreliant on importing power and fuel isn't it?

The reason I quote the law of diminishing returns is because by filling massive reservoirs you are wasting power that could be used to actually power things. You get 1MW of wind power and that is reduced to 0.8MW of stored power. It's diminished. ASSUMING there is enough wind to refill the empty reservoir.
Again, what happens when there is insufficient wind coverage to power the wind turbines and the reservoir is empty? What happens then?

maniac101

Heroditas wrote: »

Transform these figures into figures that we need for Ireland to be energy independent - we need about 6GW of hydro power.

"Energy Independence" would need an awful lot more installed capacity than that. Our total energy requirement is three times our current electricity demand. Energy independence would require satisfying the transport and heat energy demand as well. It's unfortunate that SoI didn't grasp that at the outset, as it's caused them a lot of reputational damage. The claim that Ireland could be "energy independent in five years" betrays an immaturity and lack of experience in the sector - it prompted one leading economist to dismiss the SoI team as "bunch of crackpots supported by a loony moneybag".

It's the economics that'll make or break the SoI project. So far they haven't provided convincing figures. Their project costs are dubious and their revenues assume that there'll be a ready market in the UK for excess electricity produced here and that we be able to sell it at an attractive price. They haven't properly addressed the issue of capital invested in existing plants. Their September deadline to provide more robust figures has passed without anything new posted to their website.

All that said, I still hope that they can produce something credible and that the project could be viable, albeit on a much, much smaller scale than the one first suggested.

Heroditas

maniac101 wrote: »

"Energy Independence" would need an awful lot more installed capacity than that. Our total energy requirement is three times our current electricity demand. Energy independence would require satisfying the transport and heat energy demand as well. It's unfortunate that SoI didn't grasp that at the outset, as it's caused them a lot of reputational damage.

Very true. I should have stated I was talking about electrical energy.

maniac101 wrote: »

All that said, I still hope that they can produce something credible and that the project could be viable, albeit on a much, much smaller scale than the one first suggested.

Exactly. At least it's getting people talking about alternative ways of energy storage. That in itself can be deemed a success.

Grudaire

Heroditas wrote: »

Wind generators across the whole country. 30% coverage is the accepted figure.
You're more than welcome to drop into my offices and talk to the wind power people here to discuss those figures.
Yes if you have a 1MW turbine, you'll generate 1MW but the wind does not blow all the time so the accepted industrial standard figure is 30%.
As a result, to guarantee 1MW of power, you need to have 3MW of wind generation. Sometimes you will get your full 3MW output, a lot of the time you will get 0MW. The average is 1MW.
You can't work off peak figures because the wind coverage will not always at "peak" generating capabilities.

If you're averaging 1MW over the entire period, and you need to get 1MW always from it, well then the 3MW will hypothetically cover the 1 MW over the period, and so you build an extra one to cover the wastage from filling up the resevoir. So for 4MW you should cover the total, as when you're generating the full 4MW it'll build up reserves, and when you're generating 0MW you use up the reserve.

I wouldn't separate the generation for reserves from generation for consumption the way you are...

Heroditas wrote: »

If we're buying electricity back, it defeats the whole claim of being "energy independent" doesn't it? The whole point of SoI is supposed to make us completely unreliant on importing power and fuel isn't it?

The reason I quote the law of diminishing returns is because by filling massive reservoirs you are wasting power that could be used to actually power things. You get 1MW of wind power and that is reduced to 0.8MW of stored power. It's diminished. ASSUMING there is enough wind to refill the empty reservoir.
Again, what happens when there is insufficient wind coverage to power the wind turbines and the reservoir is empty? What happens then?

Ok, so we've established the 2.6bn profit and the 'energy independence' to be flimsy at best. Are they show stoppers though?

the insufficient wind, and nothing in the reservoir is the show stopper in my opinion. The figures they use will have to be right for SOI to have a chance. Lets say that they have made enough reserves to last for 14 days with no wind - would that be enough?

Heroditas

Cliste wrote: »

If you're averaging 1MW over the entire period, and you need to get 1MW always from it, well then the 3MW will hypothetically cover the 1 MW over the period, and so you build an extra one to cover the wastage from filling up the resevoir. So for 4MW you should cover the total, as when you're generating the full 4MW it'll build up reserves, and when you're generating 0MW you use up the reserve.

I wouldn't separate the generation for reserves from generation for consumption the way you are...

In my opinion it needs to be separated. Take your 4MW - on avergae you're getting 1.3MW of wind power generated. So you use 1MW to supply the grid and the other 0.3MW to fill the reservoir.
Assume the reservoir holds enough power for 5 days - that's 1MW x 140hrs = 140MWh (I'm ignoring pump efficiencies here)
If the reservoir is empty and the wind is blowing, you need to replace the 140MWh in the reservoir but you still need to supply 1MW to the grid.
You have to work with average wind coverage because it is your "standard".
As a result, you have 0.3MW excess so at that rate, it'll take 466 hours to refill the reservoir.
Of course you can say that you might get 4MW of wind power but you can just as easily get 0MW - that's the whole reasoning behind building the reservoir in the first place.

Cliste wrote: »

Ok, so we've established the 2.6bn profit and the 'energy independence' to be flimsy at best. Are they show stoppers though?

I'd be highly skeptical of any organization that makes it one of the cornerstones and it didn't add up!

Cliste wrote: »

Lets say that they have made enough reserves to last for 14 days with no wind - would that be enough?

It possibly might but can you not see how much of an excess wind capacity you would need to build up enough excess energy to fill the reservoirs with enough stored water to power the country for two weks while at the same time still power the country with the electricity it needs?
Two weeks might just be enough but there have been lulls where the wind can die for three weeks or more.

That's the problem - it's wind! It's unpredictable. You could have howling gales for 4 months and then nothing for the rest of the year.

cleveroli

:mad:Do any of you 'hurrah for wind power' maniacs actually live beside these monstrosities???? My sister had the most beautiful views of the hills beside her house until the landowner - who lives half a mile away ! decided hed get himself some of these 'moneymakers' There is now 3 wind pylons whirring around - when their movin- the scenery is destroyed - the local quarry dug up half a mountain to shore up these eyesores and these are being promoted by the Green Party???? Dont make me laugh:mad: When interviewed on the local rag the landowner said they were a statement that the area was an eco area and wud be good for the local school children to take a school tour to?????!!!! So thanks but no thanks - keep all your tonnes of steel - mountains of filling - concrete and gravel and let me have the green green grass of home. These windmills are the equivilent of the Ballymun towers in the 60's new and shiny when built but my God doesnt everyone regret they were ever put up.

zod

Myth #4: Wind turbines are unattractive

In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.

Heroditas

I wonder what people will think of a field of these ones:

http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html

cleveroli

zod wrote: »

Myth #4: Wind turbines are unattractive

In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.

I dont know what they look like in North Carolina,but in Ireland they are sh**e! I know cos I see them every time I look out my sisters window.
You sound like you are in the business of selling them hope they come with a money back guarentee!! As for the eejits flocking to see a wind farm, god love them, they must be living in an area with feck all else to see!!! I REPEAT - BAN THE WINDMILLS- and if they are so beautiful elegant and graceful and such a tourist attraction, will they be built in Killarney National Park??? or beside John the Bull's House or Dick (my house is a protected structure) Roche??? I think youll find the answer is no!! In Fact id be very interested to hear if in fact there is one politician who has windmills beside his or her house...pls:mad:

cleveroli

Heroditas wrote: »

I wonder what people will think of a field of these ones:

http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html

I rest my case!! Tourist attraction my ar*e -

Grudaire

cleveroli wrote: »

I rest my case!! Tourist attraction my ar*e -

:rolleyes:

Listen I've had an argument with someone who claimed that the random one-off housing was good looking, but turbines weren't - Can you split this into a seperate thread, because I think we're dealing with some good points here, without nonsense like that.

Heroditas wrote: »

In my opinion it needs to be separated. Take your 4MW - on avergae you're getting 1.3MW of wind power generated. So you use 1MW to supply the grid and the other 0.3MW to fill the reservoir.
Assume the reservoir holds enough power for 5 days - that's 1MW x 140hrs = 140MWh (I'm ignoring pump efficiencies here)
If the reservoir is empty and the wind is blowing, you need to replace the 140MWh in the reservoir but you still need to supply 1MW to the grid.
You have to work with average wind coverage because it is your "standard".
As a result, you have 0.3MW excess so at that rate, it'll take 466 hours to refill the reservoir.
Of course you can say that you might get 4MW of wind power but you can just as easily get 0MW - that's the whole reasoning behind building the reservoir in the first place.

But the whole thing is the nature of being the Average. If on Average you get 1MW, and you need 1MW, then you should be happy if you can keep the energy (The crux of the SOI idea)

Your reasoning is getting muddled I think. I'm going to give you an off the top of my head example (assuming no loss even at the resevoir)

Lets say you have the following wind generation pattern over a few hours (Which averages out at 1):
1, 1, 0, 0, 2, 3, 1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0

... And you have 14MW stored in a resevoir at the start

Then the windmills cover production over the first two hours, so the resevoir potential will go (Assuming unlimited space etc):
14MW, 14MW, 13MW, 12MW, 13MW, 15MW, 15MW, 14MW, 16MW, 15MW, 14MW, 14MW, 15MW, 14MW

Obviously not a very complex model, but I think we're looking at what the Average word means differently...

Heroditas wrote: »

I'd be highly skeptical of any organization that makes it one of the cornerstones and it didn't add up!

I've noticed!

Heroditas wrote: »

It possibly might but can you not see how much of an excess wind capacity you would need to build up enough excess energy to fill the reservoirs with enough stored water to power the country for two weks while at the same time still power the country with the electricity it needs?
Two weeks might just be enough but there have been lulls where the wind can die for three weeks or more.

That's the problem - it's wind! It's unpredictable. You could have howling gales for 4 months and then nothing for the rest of the year.

Again I'll try and prod some sources out of you for that!:)

What would you say to:

“Although a single wind turbine is indeed intermittent, this is not generally true of a system of several wind farms, separated by several hundred kilometres and experiencing different wind regimes. The total output of such a system generally varies smoothly and only rarely experiences a situation where there is no wind at any site. As a result, this system can be made as reliable as a conventional base-load power station by adding a small amount of peak-load plant (say, gas turbines) that is only operated when required.”

Heroditas

Cliste wrote: »

Again I'll try and prod some sources out of you for that!

What would you say to

“Although a single wind turbine is indeed intermittent, this is not generally true of a system of several wind farms, separated by several hundred kilometres and experiencing different wind regimes. The total output of such a system generally varies smoothly and only rarely experiences a situation where there is no wind at any site. As a result, this system can be made as reliable as a conventional base-load power station by adding a small amount of peak-load plant (say, gas turbines) that is only operated when required.”

Re. the sources, I'm more than happy to give you my email address and I can discuss official industry figures regarding output for several hundred MW of wind farms for 2008.

Regarding the quote you posted, that's my point regarding needing 3MW of wind generators to guarantee 1MW. That's what my point has been all along. That's my 30% - that quote says pretty much the same thing. They need to be spread over the whole country.
Even then, you're still not guaranteed wind the whole time and there can be substantial lulls. Also, it is very hard to find the ideal sites for these wind farms and build turbines on them, along with connecting them to the grid. All this adds to the costs and makes it uneconomical.
Ireland is a small country so it is very possible to get lulls over the majority of the island at any one time.

Here's an interesting link where you can check out the wind generation at any one time:

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

Heroditas

And here's a link showing the total wind capacity in Ireland:

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Connected%20Wind%20Report%2013Oct09%20V1.pdf

You can thus compare the amount of turbines for a particular month and drill into the previous link to see what wind generation was like for the month in question.

Grudaire

Heroditas wrote: »

Re. the sources, I'm more than happy to give you my email address and I can discuss official industry figures regarding output for several hundred MW of wind farms for 2008.

Regarding the quote you posted, that's my point regarding needing 3MW of wind generators to guarantee 1MW. That's what my point has been all along. That's my 30% - that quote says pretty much the same thing. They need to be spread over the whole country.
Even then, you're still not guaranteed wind the whole time and there can be substantial lulls. Also, it is very hard to find the ideal sites for these wind farms and build turbines on them, along with connecting them to the grid. All this adds to the costs and makes it uneconomical.
Ireland is a small country so it is very possible to get lulls over the majority of the island at any one time.

I can handle the ~30% average, I just am a bit iffy about how you use this in your maths.

As for the good sites, is there not plenty of sites with clean wind throughout Ireland (we're a windy place, and we've lots of gentle country site with very few mountains.

to be honest I can't actually find figures from SOI - is there any specific ones?

Heroditas wrote: »

Here's an interesting link where you can check out the wind generation at any one time:

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

Very interesting... very very interesting.

Wind is the only renewable source which seems to be growing by their stats.

SeanW

Again I'll try and prod some sources out of you for that!

What would you say to:

I'm not sure if you follow Eirgrid's statistics for wind generation but if you follow them for some time you would indeed see an intermittent/random pattern of feasts and famines that can run for hours, days, and even weeks. Gonna need lots of storage to smooth all that out!

johnathan woss

“Although a single wind turbine is indeed intermittent, this is not generally true of a system of several wind farms, separated by several hundred kilometres and experiencing different wind regimes. The total output of such a system generally varies smoothly and only rarely experiences a situation where there is no wind at any site. As a result, this system can be made as reliable as a conventional base-load power station by adding a small amount of peak-load plant (say, gas turbines) that is only operated when required.”

Where did this quote come from ? (apologies if the source is given somewhere in the thread).

It caught my eye because it's quite disingenuous as far as I know. Wind generation has a fast-diminishing "capacity credit factor". I.e. the more wind turbines we add to the grid the less each new one aids security of supply. We could add tens of thousands of MW of wind capacity and still need conventional baseload generation (if our aim is to provide 24/7 electricity through the grid).

luohaoran

Heroditas wrote: »

In my opinion it needs to be separated. Take your 4MW - on avergae you're getting 1.3MW of wind power generated. So you use 1MW to supply the grid and the other 0.3MW to fill the reservoir.
Assume the reservoir holds enough power for 5 days - that's 1MW x 140hrs = 140MWh (I'm ignoring pump efficiencies here)
If the reservoir is empty and the wind is blowing, you need to replace the 140MWh in the reservoir but you still need to supply 1MW to the grid.
You have to work with average wind coverage because it is your "standard".
As a result, you have 0.3MW excess so at that rate, it'll take 466 hours to refill the reservoir.
Of course you can say that you might get 4MW of wind power but you can just as easily get 0MW - that's the whole reasoning behind building the reservoir in the first place.

If you assume that you are trying to fill a depleted reservoir, then you have to take into account the below average wind that led to that and factor in the above average wind condition that must follow. If you accept that the average figure is statistically accurate of course.

If you then say, yes but what if the wind stays "off" for longer, then the response is, build more storage, and factor in the cost. Note that this cost should be offset by your increased capacity to export, assuming you build in a buffer amount of generation with the storage.

If you want energy independence then you just need to scale up, so that for really extreme prolonged windless conditions , you only run the risk of shutting down export of energy.

Personally , I'd prefer a definition of Energy Independence as being at the point where we cease to be net importers of energy.

Heroditas

luohaoran wrote: »

Note that this cost should be offset by your increased capacity to export, assuming you build in a buffer amount of generation with the storage.

Your capacity to export is limited by the capacity of the interconnectors and also the external markets you intend to sell to.
There's no guarantee the external markets will even buy the energy if it is available.

luohaoran wrote: »

then the response is, build more storage, and factor in the cost.

That's a tad simplistic when we're talking about enough capacity to supply the whole country though. You're adding an awful lot onto initial costs and extending payback times.

luohaoran wrote: »

Personally , I'd prefer a definition of Energy Independence as being at the point where we cease to be net importers of energy.

Sounds good to me!


P.S. welcome aboard!

luohaoran

@Heroditas

Yes, my latter points were simply put.

But I guess my overriding point is that none of these are reasons not to fully support what SOI are trying to achieve.

I don't have any big problem with their numbers. They seem to align closely with your own. I don't think the significance you put on the 2.6 billion from exports is fair. As I recall, their point was that you could upscale substantially to turn a profit from exporting excess power, I think they pulled the figure out of the air as an example. In the same way they said it could be two or three lakes. An arbitrary choice. A bit careless, perhaps, but I imagine they did not expect the doubters to be so pedantic. I would speculate they were trying to focus on the potential at that stage, rather than the exact numbers. I don't think it was meant as a cornerstone of there policy.

Sorry to use the word pedantic, but I think it is appropriate since as you point out export potential depends on a number of interconnectors yet to be built and external markets. All that really matters is when you add it all up , can you produce the electricity at a price per unit that is competitive.
Ultimately that is what will decide if the SOI project happens or not. Not to diminish all the other benefits we, as a nation, stand to gain from an SOI type solution.

I've read a lot of forums around the viability of SOI. It seems the nay sayers are either more plentiful or more willing to offer their point of view. There certainly seems to be a great reluctance in people "to believe" that SOI could work. Perhaps I'm just an optimist, but as an electronic engineer, I don't see any technical reason why the SOI project would not work. All the arguments I've seen from the no camp have fairly obvious flaws in my opinion. And if correct at all, are generally missing the context of the bigger picture.