Answer to our energy needs blowing in the wind? maby not

Oldtree

The following article appeared in the Irish times "Answer to our energy needs blowing in the wind" on the 16/12/2009

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1216/1224260758631.html

There were a number of replies in the letters section to the above:

18/12/2009
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/1218/1224260899880.html

24/12/2009
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/1224/1224261230981.html

29/12/2009
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/1229/1224261353043.html

30/12/2009
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/1230/1224261408502.html

I have previously stated my opposition to siting wind farms on SAC's, Nha's, etc and also that I wasn't keen on the idea of digging out the insides of our mountains here in the west to create giant resivoirs.

But I was shocked by the letter from ANDY WILSON, Editor, Sustainability Journal 30/12/2009 and I would be very interested in an analysis of his letter and figures from forum members.

Judgement Day

While I agree with you about not wanting to see windfarms scattered willy about the countryside, especially in areas of scenic/environmental concern, I think wind power combined with pumped storage type schemes like that at Turlough Hill have potential. In the long term a reduction in our use of energy is essential and using electricity, from whatever source, to power the railways through overhead wires or a new generation of Drumm battery trains would seem to be a good avenue to explore rather than by producing millions of battery road vehicles. I firmly believe that the golden age of motoring has past we just haven't woken up to it yet. In much the same way as the ending of Concorde was the first time in the history of flight that we are now travelling appreciably slower than we were 30 years ago, the ending of cheap oil will inevitably lead to a reversal of road based transport solutions. Possibly a bit off topic but that's my tuppence worth.

CJhaughey

I think Mr Wilsons analysis is a reasoned and cogent argument, windpower and other renewables are an alternative but not on the scale that is needed.
I am reading James Lovelocks Gaia's Revenge and he has almost an identical viewpoint.
Be under no illusions the wind generation sector would love to blanket this island with windfarms (with state support). This is the interface between big business interests and the state supporting green initiatives.
Offshore windpower is even more expensive to build and maintain.
In the short term Nuclear is the way to go and for an island the size of this one a mini reactor would supply all the power we need for very little cost compared to massive windfarms.
I am all for green energy but the mania for windfarms leaves me a little worried that vested interests are using the green mantra as excuses to build worthless infrastructure that will ultimately end up as scrap, on our most scenic landscapes.

quentingargan

While Andy Wilson's information is correct (about current electricity consumption and wind generation trends) that doesn't mean that wind cannot take up a lot more of our electricity needs.

The ultimate goal of smart metering is not that we can just measure who is using what and when - it is to modify consumption bahaviour so we don't have these ridiculous peaks and troughs in consumption. And while electric cars are part of that, the truth is that having most houses on a single tariff rate does not stop us putting on a wash at 5.00pm at the same time we start cooking, hoovering and doing everything else. Geothermal heating systems also often cut in during peak hours which is totally daft.

There are two paradigms about peak oil and climate change - one believes that we can maintain our current behaviour because technology will improve, while the other would believe that we are all going to face catastrophic life changes for which we are ill prepared. Neither assumption is true, but I think Andy probably veers towards the latter while I would veer towards the former and take a more optimistic view of the prospects for human ingenuity. But I think many of us would agree that we could improve the situation markedly by reducing our overall consumption without too much pain.

I also think that some interpretations of the data are influenced by a belief that capitalism and greed got us into this mess, and large companies are not the solution. I have some sympathy with that view, but lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater and get lost in an anti-capitalist paradigm that would send us all back to the caves.

Besides modifying our consumption patterns, Plurion Flow Batteries and other technologies look like having good prospects. The most likely candidate may be the proposal for a High Voltage DC Grid linking all electricity in Europe so that the peaks and troughs or renewable power supply can be somewhat levelled. Solar from the Sahara, hydro from Scandanavia, wind from Ireland and Scotland. And probably Nuclear from France too (not renewable, but it is there whether we like it or not).

Such a grid requires huge investment, but electricity is a very convenient and valuable fuel medium. It is probably worth a lot more than the 16c we pay for it. My laptop costs 0.8c per hour to run. How much would electricity have to cost for me not to bother with this post?? But wholesale prices for electricity often reach 25c between 5.00 and 7.00pm. Smart metering could see a punitive charge of 40c or 50c per KwHr during that time. That would knock off a few dishwashers for a while:rolleyes:

Oldtree

I would agree that consumption times and trends would do a lot of leveling and cannot wait for a smart meter in every house, tied into that a reverse meter should the household be able to export from a small scale renewable generated source.

We already use nuclear generated electric with our current interconnector to the UK and with a new one on the way, more of the same. While our own nuclear reactor option does seem like a good rational idea, why not just put in a lot more interconnectors instead? It appears that we will not be power independant anyway, or is that too simplistic?

Pineapple_Boi

wind energy is just another technology that will never mature.

why don't we just wake up and smell the coffee that our current life is unsustainable and we will have to make do with far, far less energy in the future. that means cutting our lifestyle down a lot and gritting it out in a compact living area.

the only thing that seems feasible with current technology is careful centralised usage of the fossil fuels we have left for combined heat and power combined with a carbon sequesterisation scheme

quentingargan

Pineapple_Boi wrote: »

wind energy is just another technology that will never mature.

why don't we just wake up and smell the coffee that our current life is unsustainable and we will have to make do with far, far less energy in the future. that means cutting our lifestyle down a lot and gritting it out in a compact living area.

the only thing that seems feasible with current technology is careful centralised usage of the fossil fuels we have left for combined heat and power combined with a carbon sequesterisation scheme

Currently wind energy is sold to the grid for 6 to 7.5 cents... Less than from gas. Not mature??

Pineapple_Boi

quentingargan wrote: »

Currently wind energy is sold to the grid for 6 to 7.5 cents... Less than from gas. Not mature??

the problem is as usual the power being generated when there so happens to be wind not when people need it. the base load can't lower and increase it's output fast enough to cope with wind changes so you end up with a bunch of wind energy being 'sold' to the grid while the local coal power station keeps puffing out the same amount of Co2

quentingargan

Pineapple_Boi wrote: »

the problem is as usual the power being generated when there so happens to be wind not when people need it. the base load can't lower and increase it's output fast enough to cope with wind changes so you end up with a bunch of wind energy being 'sold' to the grid while the local coal power station keeps puffing out the same amount of Co2

Yes, but the whole idea of expanding the grid is to ensure that there is always a market somewhere within Europe for your electricity. This, along with other storage systems and demand side management is part of further wind energy expansion.

Ireland is particularly badly equipped to cope because over recent years, we have build numerous Combined Cycle gas turbines which are not well suited to rapidly ramping up and down their electricity output. This was done at a time when we should have been building peaking plants that are designed to respond to varying demands for power. This happened at a time that the regulator imposed a moratorium on developing wind energy. But you can't say that wind energy isn't a mature technology just because the Irish regulator's attitude has been found wanting.

johnathan woss

quentingargan wrote: »

There are two paradigms about peak oil and climate change - one believes that we can maintain our current behaviour because technology will improve, while the other would believe that we are all going to face catastrophic life changes for which we are ill prepared. Neither assumption is true, but I think Andy probably veers towards the latter while I would veer towards the former and take a more optimistic view of the prospects for human ingenuity. But I think many of us would agree that we could improve the situation markedly by reducing our overall consumption without too much pain.

How do you know ?

Do you have access to data that no one else has ?

pljudge321

quentingargan wrote: »

Yes, but the whole idea of expanding the grid is to ensure that there is always a market somewhere within Europe for your electricity. This, along with other storage systems and demand side management is part of further wind energy expansion.

Ireland is particularly badly equipped to cope because over recent years, we have build numerous Combined Cycle gas turbines which are not well suited to rapidly ramping up and down their electricity output. This was done at a time when we should have been building peaking plants that are designed to respond to varying demands for power. This happened at a time that the regulator imposed a moratorium on developing wind energy. But you can't say that wind energy isn't a mature technology just because the Irish regulator's attitude has been found wanting.

Can't some the ccgt plants run as open cycle peaking stations, I know poolbeg can for sure but I'm not sure about the others.

quentingargan

Johnathan, there are many views on this issue - maybe one of them is totally true. I am only expressing an opinion - not a fact of knowledge.

Pljudge - yes, as far as I know CCGT can run as open cycle, but it is more costly and not designed to run that way. Also, the contracts for some of these stations are for them to run as continuous baseload stations. Some years ago at a conference I asked CER why they didn't t seek a tender for open cycle variable output to allow more wind onto the grid and I got a gobbldygook answer about competitive tenders and pricing. I imagine that changing the contract on a station like Huntstown might cost a few bob at this stage.

rayh

Just to add another element to this thread - what are the impacts for wind generation if we consider the options for the energy lost in thermal electricity generation

cnocbui

Long distance transmission of electricity looses 7.2% of the energy. The idea of vast networks trying to shunt power all over Europe seems daft to me. I hardly think dishawashers are a problem in light of this sort of wastefullness.

It is currently -4 and there is not a breath of wind. Let's hear it for wind power.

Building nuclear power stations local to the load seems like the best solution. No need for hairshirt sacrifices and backward steps in lifestyle.

quentingargan

DC grids have virtually zero losses after initial ac dc conversion. No wind here today but maybe it is sunny in Morocco. Uranium isn't an infinite resource but hopefully sun and wind are...

Heroditas

quentingargan wrote: »

Currently wind energy is sold to the grid for 6 to 7.5 cents... Less than from gas. Not mature??

Wind power is guaranteed €60 per MWh.
The average pool price for most of 2009 was less than €60 for practically all of 2009.
Currently it's cheaper to generate electricity using gas than wind - that can change though if gas prices rise again.

old boy

cnocbui wrote: »

Long distance transmission of electricity looses 7.2% of the energy. The idea of vast networks trying to shunt power all over Europe seems daft to me. I hardly think dishawashers are a problem in light of this sort of wastefullness.

It is currently -4 and there is not a breath of wind. Let's hear it for wind power.

Building nuclear power stations local to the load seems like the best solution. No need for hairshirt sacrifices and backward steps in lifestyle.

funnily enough there is a wind turbine on a nearby hill, even in this weather it is turning merrily away

Macha

cnocbui wrote: »

Long distance transmission of electricity looses 7.2% of the energy.

Current transmission and transformation losses in Ireland alone were 2,812 ktoe in 2008 out of a total primary energy requirement of 16,356 ktoe. That's over 17% loss. The generation of electricity from fossil fuels is far from efficient.

cnocbui wrote: »

The idea of vast networks trying to shunt power all over Europe seems daft to me.

It looks like the Nordic countries, world leaders in renewable energy, disagree with you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/03/european-unites-renewable-energy-supergrid

cnocbui wrote: »

It is currently -4 and there is not a breath of wind. Let's hear it for wind power.

This is a nonsensical argument. As as already been stated, the solutions to the variability in renewable energies is a mixture of variable renewables (wind is the most variable of all), renewables that can be accessed immediately on demand (eg biogas), storage (eg hydro) and a large enough grid to ensure it works together. A project in Germany in 2008 managed to run 1/10,000th of the German grid on 100% renewable energy, thus proving that in theory it is possible.

cnocbui wrote: »

Building nuclear power stations local to the load seems like the best solution. No need for hairshirt sacrifices and backward steps in lifestyle.

Yes, god forbid there be any behaviour modification on our part - that would be the end of the world. As for "backward steps" - well it would be nice if we were humble enough to acknowledge that not every step we take in the West is a step forward.

maniac101

Oldtree wrote: »

The following article appeared in the Irish times "Answer to our energy needs blowing in the wind" on the 16/12/2009

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1216/1224260758631.html

The thrust of the ESRI research findings is that low oil (and gas) prices will make electricity prices comparatively high in Ireland by 2020 due to the high level of wind power in the generation mix, but that with moderately high oil prices wind power will serve to reduce electricity prices here compared to the rest of the EU. The research also finds that even with high oil prices the high cost of offshore wind specifically (and other high-cost renewables generally) would put upward pressure on electricity costs here. The researchers used an econometric model in their analysis. In such a model you can't put a value on SACs, NHAs, etc., or on any of the potentially negative impacts of wind farms on society or on the environment. Therefore the findings inform economic aspects of public policy making only.

30/12/2009
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/1230/1224261408502.html

I have previously stated my opposition to siting wind farms on SAC's, Nha's, etc and also that I wasn't keen on the idea of digging out the insides of our mountains here in the west to create giant resivoirs.

But I was shocked by the letter from ANDY WILSON, Editor, Sustainability Journal 30/12/2009 and I would be very interested in an analysis of his letter and figures from forum members.

Clearly the guy who wrote that letter didn't take the time to read the publicly available research findings. The research specifically looks at the year 2020 and not the current situation. The ESRI findings assume a high level of interconnection with the UK and the researchers look at a number of different scenarios relating to the building of new power plants on the British mainland. Indeed they suggest that less than 1900MW of interconnection would be very bad for Ireland. The letter writer's anecdote from last month's electricity generation statistics has no relevance whatever to the research. Extensive research by Eirgrid, CER, ESRI and educational institutions has shown that achieving a 40% renewables target is technically and economically viable without significant curtailment, provided sufficient interconnection is put in place. By contrast the letter writer has no research to back up his position; his vision of abandoned wind farms dotting the skyline is merely a figment of an over-active imagination.

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

Long distance transmission of electricity looses 7.2% of the energy.

What distance are we talking about here? What voltage is the power transmitted at? AC or DC? etc, etc...

Heroditas

djpbarry wrote: »

What distance are we talking about here?

A distance equivalent to Cork to Dublin will result in a loss of approximately 5%.
As a result, Bord Gáis's new power station at Whitegate, while capable of generation efficiency of the magnitude of 60%, will actually not be that "efficient" at all due to transmission losses.

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

A distance equivalent to Cork to Dublin will result in a loss of approximately 5%.
As a result, Bord Gáis's new power station at Whitegate, while capable of generation efficiency of the magnitude of 60%, will actually not be that "efficient" at all due to transmission losses.

Following your logic, we should be pursuing distributed generation.

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

What distance are we talking about here? What voltage is the power transmitted at? AC or DC? etc, etc...

Losses for the US national grid.

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

Following your logic, we should be pursuing distributed generation.

It's not my logic at all, it's what is happening in the All Ireland Pool at the moment.
Transmission losses are taken into account when generators are bidding into the pool every day.

Yes, distributed generation is an approach but unfortunately that runs the risk of the NIMBY opposition.

I like the idea of community CHP schemes though!

Oldtree

From the Irish Times Innovation mag "Greentech 10 To Watch In 2010" Jan 2010, at the bottom of the page here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2010/0108/1224261838374.html

GAELECTRIC

Local geology key to success in energy storage

THE ABILITY to store wind energy is something of a holy grail of clean energy and it is this factor which singles out Gaelectric from the numerous other Irish wind farm operators, because the Dublin headquartered company has proposed to build a pioneering wind energy storage project in Larne, Co Antrim, whose unique geology makes it suitable for storing wind energy using a technology known as compressed air energy storage (Caes).

Apart from pumped hydro storage, which involves using wind energy to pump water to a reservoir from where it is released to power hydroelectric turbines when the wind power is demanded by the grid, Caes is so far the only wind power storage method to have been developed to any significant scale. It operates by storing compressed air when the wind is blowing, which sometimes occurs during off-peak demand periods and releasing it, which turns a turbine to produce electricity, during times of peak demand.

The technology already exists - albeit as a power reservoir for coal and nuclear plants - in Germany and the US, where there are about 400 underground gas storage plants in existence. Gaelectric chief executive Brendan McGrath sees no reason why it can't be used in combination with wind energy.

According to the company, the ability of Caes to smooth the intermittent nature of wind can help reduce emissions across the power system by reducing the reliance on thermal plants. As such, the deployment and operation of energy storage in salt deposits is well established and is extremely safe.

Caes depends on the right geology and in Larne there are salt deposits lying in underground caverns, which would house the necessary storage vessels that are key to it's proposed €220 million project.

Having raised €25 million from private investors in 2008, McGrath is currently eyeing opportunities to establish joint ventures in central Europe, while also proceeding with a $1 billion, 500 megawatt wind farm in the Canadian state of Montana and investigating further Caes opportunities in the US.

Looks like Larne is to be the first to get dug out, I wonder what they will do with all that salt. Could do with it now I suppose

Why a salt goelogy I wonder, is there a geology issue for water storage?