Are wind farms actually of any use?

musings

I'm looking for somebody to answer this:

I find it difficult to understand the ESB's logic in building wind farms around the country when they don;t supply a constant level of power.

For example if the country's power requirement is 30 MW (figure picked from sky!) then they have to have the constant power sources such as coal plants producing 30 MW all the time in case the wind stops turning the Wind farms to avoid blackouts.
As I understand it coal and oil stations are not flexible enough in the amount of power they produce to match what the grid is getting from wind sources at any one time.

Therefore what is the point of building windfarms if they have to be backed up with coal/oil/hydro power?

Capt'n Midnight

www.met.ie

ESB have a fair idea of wind power availability in the next few hours / days
more than enough time to fire up the boilers. Wind doesn't stop instantly.


Turlough Hill can come store power any time and release it in a few minutes (we should build more)
Interconnectors allow us to import/export power to places with different wind/power needs.

look for graphs of instantaneous electricity demand , based on 5 minute or one minute demands and you'll see they fluctuate more than wind power.

Koyoto fines means fossil fuel will cost more later.

In the UK they are considering building the Severn Barrier even though they know that some tides aren't as high as others.

Marcelproust

musings wrote: »

I'm looking for somebody to answer this:

I find it difficult to understand the ESB's logic in building wind farms around the country when they don;t supply a constant level of power.

For example if the country's power requirement is 30 MW (figure picked from sky!) then they have to have the constant power sources such as coal plants producing 30 MW all the time in case the wind stops turning the Wind farms to avoid blackouts.
As I understand it coal and oil stations are not flexible enough in the amount of power they produce to match what the grid is getting from wind sources at any one time.

Therefore what is the point of building windfarms if they have to be backed up with coal/oil/hydro power?

My understanding is that the wind farms which have been constructed are more usually paid for by private investment. Certainly, from the point of dependability, wind power is less than ideal as the best turbines are idle 66% of the time, and many are idle more than 75% of the time.

That means that the ESB has to have what is known as installed capacity to cover the times when the wind isn't blowing.

That's not to say that wind doesn't have a part to play in the overall mix, but not for a reliable or dependable source of power.

My understanding is also that the coal or fossil fuel EBS stations have to be cranked up to full power requirement at all times as the system is not flexible enough, or fast enough, to increase the output from, say, a coal power station when the wind suddenly drops from some wind turbines.

The ESB's job is to ensure continuity of supply, and if you suddenly lost power dues to a bunch of wind turbines stopping, the ESB would be rightly castigated for its bad management.

When we can solve the problems of storing electrical power, then the power from wind farms can become very useful. In the meantime, their use is limited.

Shiny

I couldn't find the numbers but doesn't gas now contribute significantly
to the energy mix(Power Generation).

Gas fired plants can react a lot faster to changes in supply/demand
which would leave the coal plants to perform their base load duties.
But at the end of the day there still needs to be a better form of
storage.

This will be even more significant when all the new turbines (Gate 3)
are built.

Heroditas

Shiny wrote: »

I couldn't find the numbers but doesn't gas now contribute significantly
to the energy mix(Power Generation).

Gas fired plants can react a lot faster to changes in supply/demand
which would leave the coal plants to perform their base load duties.
But at the end of the day there still needs to be a better form of
storage.

This will be even more significant when all the new turbines (Gate 3)
are built.

60% of our electricity is generated using gas.

It depends on what type of gas plant is used.
Peaking plants can react very quickly but are horrendously expensive to run.

The idea would be to have plenty of wind power and then use peaking plants to make up a shortfall.

The ability to store energy and have a smart network will complete the puzzle

musings

So the answer looks like.........they're no use here until they invent something to store the power.

Makes you wonder why they're allowed build them at all really because these private wind companies are basically just subsidised by ESB through elaborate legislation that entitles them to access the electricity grid and market piggybacking on the baseload stations.

Another example of joined up government thinking.

SeanW

musings wrote: »

So the answer looks like.........they're no use here until they invent something to store the power.

Makes you wonder why they're allowed build them at all really because these private wind companies are basically just subsidised by ESB through elaborate legislation that entitles them to access the electricity grid and market piggybacking on the baseload stations.

Another example of joined up government thinking.

precisely. Got it in one.

Heroditas

musings wrote: »

So the answer looks like.........they're no use here until they invent something to store the power.

Makes you wonder why they're allowed build them at all really because these private wind companies are basically just subsidised by ESB through elaborate legislation that entitles them to access the electricity grid and market piggybacking on the baseload stations.

Another example of joined up government thinking.

Even better, they're subsidised by you and me and everyone else in the country through higher prices!

brownacid

There is a multi billion Euro generating Idea called spiri of ireland which uses a combined effort of wind farms to pump water into valleys, thus storing the energy as potential energy to be harnessed by hydro electricty.

www.spiritofireland.org

Heroditas

brownacid wrote: »

There is a multi billion Euro generating Idea called spiri of ireland which uses a combined effort of wind farms to pump water into valleys, thus storing the energy as potential energy to be harnessed by hydro electricty.

www.spiritofireland.org

Apart from the fact that when the wind doesn't blow, they can't fill the reservoir and if the wind doesn't blow for several weeks, what happens then?

Husavik

Heroditas wrote: »

60% of our electricity is generated using gas.

It depends on what type of gas plant is used.
Peaking plants can react very quickly but are horrendously expensive to run.

The idea would be to have plenty of wind power and then use peaking plants to make up a shortfall.

The ability to store energy and have a smart network will complete the puzzle

Do you think the they will ever develop the sandbanks off the Wicklow coast? There are 7 turbines in place but it was supposed to be 480.

My layperson's guess is that they won't unless substantial govt supports are thrown at it. And that would be an awful pity because it would ruin the beauty of coastal living in south Leinster.

Heroditas

Husavik wrote: »

Do you think the they will ever develop the sandbanks off the Wicklow coast? There are 7 turbines in place but it was supposed to be 480.

My layperson's guess is that they won't unless substantial govt supports are thrown at it. And that would be an awful pity because it would ruin the beauty of coastal living in south Leinster.

Eventually I think they will. Airtricity are owned by SSE now so they have the financial clout to build a few more if they want to.
However, I'm unsure about the wind capacity figures for that area of the country. Certainly it makes more sense to build wind farms off the west coast where it's much windier.

I agree to a certain extent about the beauty.
A couple of turbines is ok but I wouldn't want to be looking out to see and be greeted by a wall of them

Capt'n Midnight

Heroditas wrote: »

60% of our electricity is generated using gas.

Didn't we peak at something like 88% of electricity generated from imported fossil fuel, where we have very little control of supply / price

The ability to store energy and have a smart network will complete the puzzle

Solar panels are down to $2 /watt , if you can make a cheap enough storage system then we could run everything from solar panels on the roof

Capt'n Midnight

Could have sworn I mentioned the interconnector , we aren't dependent on local wind.

I'm pretty sure that large customers of the ESB can get preferential rates by agreeing to reduce their consumption when demands on the grid are high. It's cheaper than building stations only used at peak demand.

We are in the middle of a recession , demand for fossil fuel should be low and prices should be very low, but somehow we aren't seeing this. If the market can take current prices then there is no incentive to drop them. Fossil fuel is unlikely to return to the low prices of the past.

Back in the 30's we were the world leader in peat. We could become a world leader in wave power.


Interestingly while it may take 10-20 years for a wind farm to pay for itself financially, it can carbon offset itself in just a few months.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irelands-emissions-are-falling-but-still-far-from-target-1973832.html - we are 7% over our Kyoto target and will need to offset a ton of carbon per person, what it the current price for this and how will the speculators up this as we get closer to the dead line ??

musings

The interconnector would make sense, but it isn't built yet

But even if they did build a huge pan-european grid of wind power, it wouldn't be very efficient without some form of storage locally as significant power is lost in transporting the power long distances over the lines.

For example during that big freeze in january both the UK & Ireland had low temperatures with very little wind and high electricity demand, which would require in theory our wind power to come from the continent somewhere which would further reduce the efficiency.

Capt'n Midnight

musings wrote: »

The interconnector would make sense, but it isn't built yet

But even if they did build a huge pan-european grid of wind power, it wouldn't be very efficient without some form of storage locally as significant power is lost in transporting the power long distances over the lines.

For example during that big freeze in january both the UK & Ireland had low temperatures with very little wind and high electricity demand, which would require in theory our wind power to come from the continent somewhere which would further reduce the efficiency.

wasn't there something about it being the longest cold spell for ages

yes power would be lost , but all the nay sayers are always moaning about how most of wind power is wasted anyway since you cant match it to the load. Using higher voltages means lower % loss.

And anyone who has lived with a CRT TV can't really complain about the electrical field intensity

Loosing 20-30% of imported wind power is probably better than having to pay an unknown price to import fuel and then having to pay the Kyoto tax on top of that

Jim Martin

brownacid wrote: »

There is a multi billion Euro generating Idea called spiri of ireland which uses a combined effort of wind farms to pump water into valleys, thus storing the energy as potential energy to be harnessed by hydro electricty.

www.spiritofireland.org

From what I understand, they propose to pump seawater inland; the potential negative impacts of this on the soil and biodiversity don't bear thinking about!

Heroditas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Could have sworn I mentioned the interconnector , we aren't dependent on local wind.

We have an interconnector between here and NI. Its capacity is quite low though and its main purpose is to serve the Single Electricity Market (SEM)

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that large customers of the ESB can get preferential rates by agreeing to reduce their consumption when demands on the grid are high. It's cheaper than building stations only used at peak demand.

The WPDRS (winter peak demand reduction scheme) is being discontinued and other methods looking at demand side management are being examined.
Customers get a bonus based on achieving targets to reduce their MIC between the evening hours of 5 and 7. If they meet them, they get a bonus, if they don't they get fined!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We are in the middle of a recession , demand for fossil fuel should be low and prices should be very low, but somehow we aren't seeing this. If the market can take current prices then there is no incentive to drop them. Fossil fuel is unlikely to return to the low prices of the past.

Overall demand for electricity in Ireland had dropped by 6% last year. This year there has been, so far, a 3% increase on last year's figures. Demand hasn't dropped that much, despite the recession.

Also, there are still many speculators driving the prices up internationally. A weak dollar means a lot of speculation in commodities.
We saw the "true" value of oil in December 08/January 09 when it was down around the $35 mark. OPEC cut production and the return of speculators have seen it rise to $80.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the 30's we were the world leader in peat. We could become a world leader in wave power.

Hopefully we do! It would be a great achievement.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Interestingly while it may take 10-20 years for a wind farm to pay for itself financially, it can carbon offset itself in just a few months.

I find that very hard to believe.
Certainly, the return on investment for wind farms would be ridiculously long if it were not for the subsidies handed out to wind generators in the form of guaranteed prices and also capacity payments.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

we are 7% over our Kyoto target and will need to offset a ton of carbon per person, what it the current price for this and how will the speculators up this as we get closer to the dead line ??

Carbon is today trading at €12.83 per tonne.
Carbon trading has been a joke and the first tranche of it collapsed spectacularly. Generators using fossil fuels already pick up the cost of this carbon scheme so that's why the carbon tax has not resulted in higher electricity prices; the cost has already been absorbed.

Carbon trading doesn't focus on the key issues which are sustainability and efficiency.
I don't know anyone in the energy industry who thinks carbon certs do any good. It simply dodges the real issue of waste.

Capt'n Midnight

Heroditas wrote: »

I find that very hard to believe.
Certainly, the return on investment for wind farms would be ridiculously long if it were not for the subsidies handed out to wind generators in the form of guaranteed prices and also capacity payments.

IIRC the ESB were saying 6 months for a wind farm to break even on carbon used in manufacturing

Hydro and Nuclear also have long payback times,
It would be difficult to justify Fossil Fuel plants with very long ROI if you didn't have some security on the price of the fuel too.

Carbon is today trading at €12.83 per tonne.
...
Carbon trading doesn't focus on the key issues which are sustainability and efficiency.
I don't know anyone in the energy industry who thinks carbon certs do any good. It simply dodges the real issue of waste.

I'm just worried that the powers that be haven't bought enough credits to cover for the fines we are due to pay and that we get hit by speculators closer to the time. But that is finance.

Don't get me started on palm oil grown on drained land

bonkey

musings wrote: »

So the answer looks like.........they're no use here until they invent something to store the power.

I'm not sure how you got that answer from the responses offered.

Short-term fluctuations in wind are irrelevant. As pointed out, demand fluctuates more, and that's handled anyway.

Sure, we need to have thermal stations (or a proper interconnect) to be able to handle the situations where in the mid-term we have too little wind to meet demand (e.g. a calm or excessively stormy days)....but that doesn't mean that wind has no role.

When the wind is blowing, every MWhour of power coming from wind is a MWhour worth of fossil fuel that we don't burn.

From the point of view of generation capacity, then sure...wind doesn't remove the need for base capacity...but that doesn't make it worthless.

musings

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure how you got that answer from the responses offered.

Short-term fluctuations in wind are irrelevant. As pointed out, demand fluctuates more, and that's handled anyway.

Sure, we need to have thermal stations (or a proper interconnect) to be able to handle the situations where in the mid-term we have too little wind to meet demand (e.g. a calm or excessively stormy days)....but that doesn't mean that wind has no role.

When the wind is blowing, every MWhour of power coming from wind is a MWhour worth of fossil fuel that we don't burn.

From the point of view of generation capacity, then sure...wind doesn't remove the need for base capacity...but that doesn't make it worthless.

No, I stand by what I said and that is that they are of no use on our grid currently as they do not reduce the amount of fuel burned in our base load stations as the base load stations are too inflexible to be turned down or off when the wind blows. Read through the previous posts thoroughly.

An interconnector would help by theoretically importing wind power from a larger grid which would hopefully have a broad enough scale to have wind power being generated all of the time.

Heroditas

bonkey wrote: »

Short-term fluctuations in wind are irrelevant. As pointed out, demand fluctuates more, and that's handled anyway.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Demand fluctuations can be predicted a lot more than wind fluctuations.

bonkey wrote: »

When the wind is blowing, every MWhour of power coming from wind is a MWhour worth of fossil fuel that we don't burn.

The fossil fuel stations are still burning fuel because you can't just "turn them on" at the drop of a hat.
Granted, they're "ticking over" but it's a fallacy to state that every wind MWh saves fossil fuels being used.

Akrasia

Heroditas wrote: »

Apart from the fact that when the wind doesn't blow, they can't fill the reservoir and if the wind doesn't blow for several weeks, what happens then?

we'd probably need an investigation into how we ended up stranded in the bermuda triangle.

All sensible plans for renewable power also includes numerous interconnectors to the U.K. and european grids. If Ireland is stuck in the doldrums then we'd buy power from the continent.

Prices would go up at times of lower supply, but this would be offset by revenue from selling power during times of excess supply.

Akrasia

Jim Martin wrote: »

From what I understand, they propose to pump seawater inland; the potential negative impacts of this on the soil and biodiversity don't bear thinking about!

What does 'don't bear thinking about' mean?

Would it not be a better idea to do a thorough scientific evaluation of what the consequences (if any) would be?

Also, if the flooding of a few coastal valleys 'doesn't bear thinking about', you should be really worried about the consequences of even a 1 metre sea level rise and the effects that would have on coastal habitats around the planet (including our own)

Heroditas

Akrasia wrote: »

Also, if the flooding of a few coastal valleys 'doesn't bear thinking about', you should be really worried about the consequences of even a 1 metre sea level rise and the effects that would have on coastal habitats around the planet (including our own)

Please keep your climate change alarmism off this thread.
It's been remarkably civil so far and possible level rises are not the subject matter

bonkey

Heroditas wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Demand fluctuations can be predicted a lot more than wind fluctuations.

At a certain level, thats true.

If we smoothen out the small, minute-to-minute fluctuations, then yes....we can predict a demand-curve which works well. Basically, generation runs slightly above the demand-curve, which in turn allows for these minor fluctuations.

If we apply the same logic, however, we can achieve the same effect with wind. If you've ever sailed, or windsurfed, or flown a kite, you'll know that wind effects over the very short term have minor fluctuations which can be easily "smoothened" out.

Once we move beyond the short term, we move into the area where weather prediction begins to play a role. If we know, for example, that the wind is due to pick up tonight, and then blow fairly steadily for (at least) the next 12 hours, then we don't need to know the exact minute that it starts, nor the exact minute it will end.

The fossil fuel stations are still burning fuel because you can't just "turn them on" at the drop of a hat.

No-one's suggesting otherwise.

You can, however, run them at below-full-capacity and scale up or down within reasonable periods of time...periods which can be managed using alternate approaches.

Capt'n Midnight

Steam turbines can store energy in the boilers.

Gas turbines can store energy as compressed air which is later used to feed the burners.

There are ways of storing energy, hydroelectric just happens to have advantages especially in terms of scale.



I love the talk about biodiversity, Irish ecosystems are only about 14,000 years old, the temperate regions are only temporary. 7,000 years ago the Sahara had trees and Crocodiles, now it's lost the trees and most of the crocs. The land being proposed to be used is not productive and you can be bloody sure the BANANA brigade will be up in arms regardless of the outcome of the mandatory EIS. I can't imagine one being built in the Burren or on Dun Aengus even though there are nice high cliffs nearby.

Jim Martin

Akrasia wrote: »

What does 'don't bear thinking about' mean?

Would it not be a better idea to do a thorough scientific evaluation of what the consequences (if any) would be?

Also, if the flooding of a few coastal valleys 'doesn't bear thinking about', you should be really worried about the consequences of even a 1 metre sea level rise and the effects that would have on coastal habitats around the planet (including our own)

I agree about the evaluation but I fear that the consequences of saline water leaching out (& maybe wind-blown spray) in/on the soil and biodiversity could be calamitous!

Akrasia

Jim Martin wrote: »

I agree about the evaluation but I fear that the consequences of saline water leaching out (& maybe wind-blown spray) in/on the soil and biodiversity could be calamitous!

I think your concerns are a little bit misplaced. These projects would be constructed by the sea where there is already a lot of salt in the wind and water. The biodiversity worth protecting is all going to be of a coastal variety. The bigger risk is going to be to agriculture, there may be an effect on adjacent agricultural lands, but to call this 'calamitous' is a little bit hysterical.

There are upsides to this kind of development for the local commmunity that would more than balance out the potential losses. These resevoirs could be turned into local amenities, there would be guaranteed local employment in the construction and management of the power stations.

flashforward

Interesting thread! posted something about this in a wrong forum last week

According to Brian O Gallachoir wind power in irleland in 2008 accounted for 8.3% of irelands power consumption.

While the IWEA says that the installed wind capacity of ireland is 1570 MW and accounts for the needs of 677,000 homes.
'The current* grid connected and operational installed wind capacity on the island of Ireland is 1570.10 Megawatts (MW) which will on average generate 4,263,763 Megawatt hours (MWh) in a year given a 31% load**or capacity factor.
Sustainable Energy Ireland's 2008 Report, "Energy in the Residential Sector" report states that the average household consumed 5.591 MWh in 2006.page 27 If we assume that electricity consumption growth is roughly similar as previous years (around 3%) this means that in 2010, wind energy accounts for the electricity needs of over 677,000 domestic households in Ireland.'

Is there something way off here?

What wind power capacity does Ireland actually need? And when should we hope to achieve this by?

Heroditas

flashforward wrote: »

Sustainable Energy Ireland's 2008 Report, "Energy in the Residential Sector" report states that the average household consumed 5.591 MWh in 2006.page 27

Hmmmm, I must have a look at that report.
That figure seems a bit too small when one takes primary energy into account and also the energy in home heating.

dangleberries

Akrasia wrote: »

I think your concerns are a little bit misplaced. These projects would be constructed by the sea where there is already a lot of salt in the wind and water. The biodiversity worth protecting is all going to be of a coastal variety. The bigger risk is going to be to agriculture, there may be an effect on adjacent agricultural lands, but to call this 'calamitous' is a little bit hysterical.

There are upsides to this kind of development for the local commmunity that would more than balance out the potential losses. These resevoirs could be turned into local amenities, there would be guaranteed local employment in the construction and management of the power stations.

The real risk as i see it would be that of sea water contamination of the ground water.
The amenity potential of such facilities would be greatly limited by the fluctuations in water levels required to maximise potential.

zod

dangleberries wrote: »

The real risk as i see it would be that of sea water contamination of the ground water.
The amenity potential of such facilities would be greatly limited by the fluctuations in water levels required to maximise potential.

The lining and grouting of the valley is discussed here, go to page 3 for the start of the discussion.

Capt'n Midnight

Heroditas wrote: »

The fossil fuel stations are still burning fuel because you can't just "turn them on" at the drop of a hat.
Granted, they're "ticking over" but it's a fallacy to state that every wind MWh saves fossil fuels being used.

:rolleyes:

weather systems don't change instantaneously, so there is usually days/hours notice of wind changes. There is less wear and tear on fossil fuel stations when they aren't in use , so they last longer

and yes we shoud be looking at tidal / wave power too
and something like coppiced willow , depending on the economics might be worth while, it might be better to sell the timber. In other countries Hydroelectric dams don't use the water for electricity ! , they make more money storing / selling the water for irrigation or fish farming , yes they make elecricity too , but he main income and thus the timing of water release is determined by other concerns.

Heroditas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

:rolleyes:

weather systems don't change instantaneously, so there is usually days/hours notice of wind changes. There is less wear and tear on fossil fuel stations when they aren't in use , so they last longer

Explain the sudden massive fluctuations in the pool price.

If we can predict changes in weather so accurately, why the massive fluctuations when the grid should be able to call on the conventional stations to generate instead of the more expensive peaking plants?

caesarthechimp

Akrasia wrote: »

These resevoirs could be turned into local amenities, there would be guaranteed local employment in the construction and management of the power stations.

And we could fish for mackerel in the new lakes

BostonB

When its windy how much less fossil fuel do they use?

gu10

Enrate wrote: »

And we could fish for mackerel in the new lakes

If they were nuclear power stations we could be fishing for radioactive mullet with 8 testicles they could build quite a few more wind turbines before they start being of no use. especially if excess capacity can be distributed using a 'smart grid' (used to power dish washers, dryer, electric heater, immersion and such). something like this on a larger scale