Chinese pay toxic price for a green world

ei.sdraob

Ok lets do a simple exercise using Eirgrid's figures
Firstly lifetime costs of each tech



Secondly if you take the halfhourly generation figures from eirgrid for 2010, you would get 299MW average generation from an average installed capacity of 1500MW :rolleyes:, thats ~20% availability over the year at any time

so to generate an extra 1 Terrawatt hour continuously one would need:

* 80euro * 1,000,000 * (10/9) = 88 million if chose nuclear, 90% availability is the norm with previous gen reactors

* 75 euro * 1,000,000 * (5/1) = 375 million if chosen onshore wind, yes almost 5x thanks to a measly 20% availability of onshore wind


Eirgrid predict an extra 10 TWh of demand between now and 2030, so yeah which option will be cheaper



please note:

* That the above uses the average over a year for all the windmills scattered all over the country already,
if you go with wind some months and weeks you could generate **** all energy,
the average for december was 10%, that means either importing the energy in that time (not cheap and so much for energy independence) or using gas (back to fossil fuels) or freezing :P
You could store this energy in a Spirit of Ireland type storage at a capital cost of €1,200/kW (source Eirgrid) adding further costs

* If you go with nuclear you know exactly how much you can generate and you know all the costs, and yes the above figure from Eirgrid is based on Finlands experience and includes waste disposal

* Going nuclear would not required billions to be spend on new power lines saving even more money

Ghost Estate

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so to generate an extra 1 Terrawatt hour continuously one would need:

* 80euro * 1,000,000 * (10/9) = 88 million if chose nuclear, 90% availability is the norm with previous gen reactors

* 75 euro * 1,000,000 * (5/1) = 375 million if chosen onshore wind, yes almost 5x thanks to a measly 20% availability of onshore wind

Nuclear fuel isn't getting any cheaper and since we don't have any worth mentioning in this country you'd be utterly at the mercy of a couple of foreign suppliers.

With 90% availability you might as well also build a spare 1TW power station beside it because any modern high-flying Dublin based socialites left here would have a fit if they were without power for 10% of the time.

They'd be "omg loike I'm SOO leaving this backward old dump and moving to London so I can shop at Waitrose" "oh my god I couldn't even charge my brand new iPhone 5G and I was off Facebook for TWENTY WHOLE MINUTES I though't i'd doi!! deffo. Now where did I put that pint of p1ss I paid 10 euro for? I cant see it in the dark"

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so to generate an extra 1 Terrawatt hour continuously one would need:

* 80euro * 1,000,000 * (10/9) = 88 million if chose nuclear, 90% availability is the norm with previous gen reactors

* 75 euro * 1,000,000 * (5/1) = 375 million if chosen onshore wind, yes almost 5x thanks to a measly 20% availability of onshore wind

The figure in question refers to lifetime generation costs, not capacity costs – I can’t imagine that variability in wind output has not already been taken into consideration.

ei.sdraob

I found another report from UKs Parsons Brinckerhoff only few months old, very interesting document and has detailed cost breakdowns


Full details of the 2010 Powering the Nation update can be downloaded here (PDF, 258Kb).
The following illustrations are also available:
Range of costs - all technologies (PDF, 67Kb).
Cost breakdowns - all technologies (PDF, 66Kb).




More variables not accounted for in case of Ireland:

* wind will require massive investment in the grid building pylons to the back arse of nowhere for new farms. 2.1 billion eirgrid will have to spend in next 3 years alone, nuclear on the other hand can be located at existing high voltage lines/ plants like moneypoint

* we only have so many good onshore wind locations, the lowest hanging fruit already have windfarms on them, which take up alot of land


@Ghost Estate the fuel is less than 10% of the cost of running a nuclear plant as shown in above report and the fuel is readily available from such rogue states such as Canada and Australia
oh and 90% availability is a bit higher than 20% over the last year (10% last month) :rolleyes: no? that's dismal availability! there was me thinking 30% or more but no the generation data for the year is all there.

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

More variables not accounted for in case of Ireland:

* wind will require massive investment in the grid building pylons to the back arse of nowhere for new farms. 2.1 billion eirgrid will have to spend in next 3 years alone...

What’s your source for that figure?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Ghost Estate the fuel is less than 10% of the cost of running a nuclear plant as shown in above report and the fuel is readily available from such rogue states such as Canada and Australia...

Most of the world’s uranium mining takes place outside of Australia, Canada and the US. The French, for example, get a sizeable chunk of their uranium from Niger.

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

What’s your source for that figure?
.

I provided reference to the eirgrid document already in this thread

Grid25 estimated that about €4bn was required, in addition to the almost €1bn current
capital programme, out to 2025 to achieve the objectives of meeting the government’s
renewable targets, facilitating balanced regional development and maintaining security of
supply.

EirGrid has examined the phasing for delivering of Grid25 with a view to identifying the
network capex required in the 2011-15 revenue control period. This exercise identified the
Network Needs of €2b in 2011-15. The network development underpinning the €2b is
consistent with the assumptions behind the offers to generators connecting to the system
under Gate 3.

Primetime programme on wind months ago or so had much higher figures... but the above is straight from the horses mouth

djpbarry wrote: »

What’s your source for that figure?
Most of the world’s uranium mining takes place outside of Australia, Canada and the US. The French, for example, get a sizeable chunk of their uranium from Niger.

Thats just for Uranium, I mentioned Thorium several times in any threads on nuclear.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

No, what is perverse is quite obviously attempting to make the figures fit into your position.

I'm sorry but your statement is like saying that 'one pizza has more topping than the other' and omits to state that the pizza with more topping has more topping because its ten times bigger than the other one and feeds ten times as many people. Oh and it also omits to say that the smaller pizza has at least double the depth of topping.
Sticking by your statement does nothing to promote your credibility and indicates that sensible discussion and sharing of information shouldn't be expected.

Macha wrote: »

Wow, a free market energy blog not agreeing with renewable subsidies. Whatever next?

Actually the article at this link:http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/ looks at 'CO2 emissions and wind electricity production'.
And is the IEMA any more of a credible source?
"IEMA is now the leading international membership-based organisation dedicated to the promotion of sustainable development"

Macha wrote: »

No, it's called balancing the grid. What you need to look at is overall carbon intensity over a wider time scale, not picking out particular moments in the process and complaining about them. It entirely misses the point.

So, can you show how Germany or Denmark have reduced their CO2 emissions as a result of their wind generators?

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

The figure in question refers to lifetime generation costs, not capacity costs – I can’t imagine that variability in wind output has not already been taken into consideration.

On the chart on page 3 at this link: http://www.pbworld.co.uk/media.php?file=1148 (as already supplied by ei.sdraob), what's the meaning of the statement "NOTE: all plant assumed to run at base load, unless otherwise noted".

Look at the cost of peak duty (5%) OCGT (Gas-oil):
"The two sets of data for open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) reflect two alternative duties for this type of plant. The conventional duty of mid-merit to peak is represented by the gas fired OCGT with a typical load factor of 20%. The peak duty (5%) for OCGT may be increasingly required to manage transient conditions when there are fast declines in wind generation as weather patterns cross the country. In this case the plant would need to be oil-fired as gas supplies would be unlikely to be delivered quickly enough through the gas network."

I can't give much more time to this board at the moment so happy postings folks.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I'm sorry but your statement is like saying that 'one pizza has more topping than the other' and omits to state that the pizza with more topping has more topping because its ten times bigger than the other one and feeds ten times as many people. Oh and it also omits to say that the smaller pizza has at least double the depth of topping.
Sticking by your statement does nothing to promote your credibility and indicates that sensible discussion and sharing of information shouldn't be expected.

I'm not worried about my credibility <mod note> and as you were complaining about earlier, attack the post not the poster please. </mod note>

The facts remain that you want a narrow, targeted analysis of subsidies to suit your position. As I mentioned already, there is the issue of demand caused by subsidies not to mention the fact that the entire history of subsidies and other factors would have to be considered for a proper analysis. If you want to go ahead, be my guest.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Actually the article at this link:http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/ looks at 'CO2 emissions and wind electricity production'.
And is the IEMA any more of a credible source?
"IEMA is now the leading international membership-based organisation dedicated to the promotion of sustainable development"

Yes the IEMA is a more credible source. You can check IEA figures if you so wish.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

So, can you show how Germany or Denmark have reduced their CO2 emissions as a result of their wind generators?

I don't need to bother with Germany or Denmark, I can demonstrate it for Ireland. In SEAI's latest report on renewables in Ireland it is stated:

• CO2 avoided through renewable energy use increased by 257% (7.3% per annum on average) over the period 1990 to 2008 reaching 2,830 kt CO2 in 2008.

• Wind energy use gave rise to the largest avoidance of emissions in 2008 (46%) followed by solid biomass and hydro

http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf

robtri

we have 148 wind farms in Ireland....
http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/windmap
generating 1771MW of electricity

this is approx. 2231 wind turbines in the country (my numbers)

I would like to see a study to see the overall enviromental impact of the all these turbines, from the mining to the building to the transport to the installation, foundations ect...
compared to say gas fired units for eg.. money point 915MW gas fired units....

be an interesting study i would say

Macha

robtri wrote: »

we have 148 wind farms in Ireland....
http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/windmap
generating 1771MW of electricity

this is approx. 2231 wind turbines in the country (my numbers)

I would like to see a study to see the overall enviromental impact of the all these turbines, from the mining to the building to the transport to the installation, foundations ect...
compared to say gas fired units for eg.. money point 915MW gas fired units....

be an interesting study i would say

I have already given total carbon emission figures for the various fuel types. If you'd like to find others, please go ahead.

The environmental impact statements for each site should also be available.

robtri

Macha wrote: »

I have already given total carbon emission figures for the various fuel types. If you'd like to find others, please go ahead.

The environmental impact statements for each site should also be available.

the carbon figures you gave arent what I am after...
enviromental impact statments for each site arent what I am after...
they dont address the issues at hand in any way

ei.sdraob

@robtri

The average installed wind for 2010 was 1500MW with 299MW being generated on average at any point of time during the year, which is a terrible joke since the other 80% of the time had to rely on fossil fuel :rolleyes:

I posted link earlier to the Eirgrids document with overall lifetime cost for each technology but excluding subsidies and other factors such as exported pollution (this thread) and of course the cost of adding new grid connections

Wind is neither cheap nor reliable and the document linked by Macha above has some very ambitious targets such as 500MW of wave energy which is very expensive (3.3x more than nuclear) and would require further money spent in the grid and is heavily subsidise (20c+ per kW guaranteed under REFIT), the figures for offshore wind are fairly bad too

Macha wrote: »

I have already given total carbon emission figures for the various fuel types. If you'd like to find others, please go ahead.

Please show us where the damage cause by rare earth mining and processing (thread subject) is accounted for especially in the case China who are the main produce (95%) and are heavy coal users and have not signed up to any targets.

Macha

robtri wrote: »

the carbon figures you gave arent what I am after...
enviromental impact statments for each site arent what I am after...
they dont address the issues at hand in any way

Well please let us know what you are looking for.

Are you equally investigative of such comprehensive impact assessments of fossil fuel plants?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Please show us where the damage cause by rare earth mining and processing (thread subject) is accounted for especially in the case China who are the main produce (95%) and are heavy coal users and have not signed up to any targets.

China's emissions have little relevance for the rare earth mining & processing. These factors would have been taken into consideration for the emissions stats I gave above.

There is little point in me gathering such information if there is nothing to compare it to. So would you show us the damage caused through the entire life cycle of Ireland's fossil fuel plants? It seems to be at about the same level of research expected of me.

robtri

Macha wrote: »

Well please elucidate us.

Are you equally investigative of such comprehensive impact assessments of fossil fuel plants?


.

that isnt that what i said

I would like to see a study to see the overall enviromental impact of the all these turbines, from the mining to the building to the transport to the installation, foundations ect...
compared to say gas fired units for eg.. money point 915MW gas fired units....

be an interesting study i would say

Yes I would like a fair comparison for fossil fule .. like gas against wind turbines for the same amount of capacity.. looking at manufacturing impacts to install impacts

I dont have an answer, thats why i am saying i would like to see one!!

Macha

Sorry, too much multi tasking going on.

I think the difficulties in analysis arise as technologies are often compared on single aspects, eg carbon emissions. So to avoid comparing apples & oranges, the analysis would have to compare each technology under a number of headings.

I'm not familiar with any studies as comprehensive as you seem to be looking for but will do a bit of a search.

Edit: Is this the sort of thing you're looking for, albeit not comparing technologies as such:

http://www.rpi.edu/cfes/news-and-events/Wind%20Workshop/An%20Environmental%20Life%20Cycle%20Analysis%20of%20Wind%20Power.pdf

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

I don't need to bother with Germany or Denmark, I can demonstrate it for Ireland. In SEAI's latest report on renewables in Ireland it is stated:
• CO2 avoided through renewable energy use increased by 257% (7.3% per annum on average) over the period 1990 to 2008 reaching 2,830 kt CO2 in 2008.
• Wind energy use gave rise to the largest avoidance of emissions in 2008 (46%) followed by solid biomass and hydro

http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf

Here’s what I found on the first person check I did on the SEAI: http://www.seai.ie/About_Us/SEAI_Structure/
“Low Carbon Technologies :Katrina Polaski & Eoin Sweeney”

And here at the IWEA's Annual Conference 2010, the trade lobby group for the Irish wind industry: http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm?page=viewnews&id=59
she’s presenting on “Social Acceptance of Wind Energy" "Katrina Polaski Head of Low Carbon Technologies”
http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/iwec_10?twfId=383&download=true
There are some great piccys at this link and on page 25 it says
“No national anti-wind group active in Ireland –yet?”

Macha

The statistics from the publication I linked to were independently calculated by the EPSSU or Energy Policy Statistical Support Unit that is outsourced by SEAI.

If you find an error in the calculations or methodology, please let me know - and them, I'm sure they would be happy to make the necessary amendments.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

http://www.rpi.edu/cfes/news-and-events/Wind%20Workshop/An%20Environmental%20Life%20Cycle%20Analysis%20of%20Wind%20Power.pdf

On page 19 it states "May need to consider “big picture” if also adding backup power to grid"

Do you have a detailed breakdown on this?


Perhaps you can help here also please, you write 'CO2 avoided through renewable energy use reached 2,830 kt CO2 in 2008'.
What was the figure in 2009 and in 2010?
And what were the respective total emissions (electricity, heating and transport) for these three years?

Macha

Chloe Pink, it was a random link I posted in response to robtri's request for a comprehensive lifecycle analysis.

The question of whether I would have further details of something that is alluded to in passing within this article is absurd.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Chloe Pink, it was a random link I posted in response to robtri's request for a comprehensive lifecycle analysis.

The question of whether I would have further details of something that is alluded to in passing within this article is absurd.

There's a similar reference in the SEAI report:http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf
Appendix 1 page 38
"The limitations and caveats associated with this methodology include that it ignores any plant used to meet the associated reserve requirements of renewables. These open cycle plants will typically have lower efficiency and generate increased CO2 and NOx emissions compared with CCGT and these emissions should be incorporated into the analysis. The purpose of presenting a simplified analysis here is to provide initial insights into the amount of fossil fuels that are displaced by renewables and the amount of emissions thereby avoided."

Macha

All decent methodologies are required to include references to their limitations. The idea that in science any methodology doesn't have a limitation is unheard of.

In relation to this specific limitation, the emissions would still count in the national inventory although I agree that they should be factored into this analysis or at least be presented in tandem with the existing figures.

This doesn't remove the fact that the installation of renewables displaces fossil fuels and in turn reduces our national emissions. And it doesn't take away from the other drivers for renewables, namely energy security, fuel mix, volatile fuel markets etc etc.

Edit: For a closer analysis, I would recommend comparing the Table B.1 or expanded energy balance of various years. Here is a link to 2008:

http://coe.epa.ie/ghg/nirs/NIR_2010_IEv1.2.pdf

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

This doesn't remove the fact that the installation of renewables displaces fossil fuels and in turn reduces our national emissions. And it doesn't take away from the other drivers for renewables, namely energy security, fuel mix, volatile fuel markets etc etc."

Yes but by what degree and at at what cost?

And regarding security of supply and CO2 emissions:
The “Tyndall Centre Technical Report 30, July 2005 Conclusion 5, Security of decarbonised electricity systems” refers to the back up plants needed for wind turbines:
"We observed that wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the same as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant will still be required.
However, these conventional plants will be required to run either occasionally and/or at part load when shortages of supply are likely to occur due to a low total wind power output. Considering that conventional plants at full load are the most efficient and generate the lowest amount of CO2 emission (per electricity produced) such occasionally and/or part-loaded plants will be less utilised and/or produce more CO2 per electricity produced."

And OFGEM say:
"But we do not think that either the existing scheme or the Government’s proposed changes are the best way to either promote renewable generation or to cut carbon dioxide emissions. We think that the current scheme costs customers more than it needs to and we do not think that the Government’s proposed changes are a good idea. We explain why in this response and also develop our thinking on alternative support mechanisms that we think could meet the Government’s renewable and carbon emissions targets at lower costs to electricity customers."

And that the National Audit Office reports that:
"1. Onshore wind is very significantly over subsidised.
2. The Renewables Obligation is a very expensive way to save CO2."

See bottom of page 8 at this link:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/renewables-obligation-paper.pdf

And much more...

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Yes but by what degree and at at what cost?

There is no cheap solution. The IEA has clearly stated the reality of peak oil and the pure volatility of fuel markets has its economic costs. It isn't that the era of fossil fuels is over, the era of cheap fossil fuels is over. Or rather that the era of cheap energy is over.

The links you use seem to only see back up capacity as the only way to integrate renewables into a grid. In reality there are a number of other options including storage, including distributed storage, increases in dispatchable renewables and greater grid connectivity.

Capt'n Midnight

maninasia wrote: »

With cloud computing server farms can be placed in cooler places, I can only see this trend increasing exponentially, it doesn't make sense to manage a server onsite for most applications (even home users) if you can virtually manage it and rent instead of buying.

most server equipment will run at 40 degrees, does it ever get that hot here ?

Also an einstein refrigatoris powered by heat, is it Hitachi who are using the waseheat from servers to pre cool the incoming air ?

The reason we don't have nuclear is the Irish way, we are conservative and pious but not actually knowledgeable or eco conscious.

our electricity market is the size of Birmingham

No foreign entrants to the market after deregulation

So no one would be tempted to invest here , and nuclear is a huge investment. we would need one spare station, for planned outages. 50% of reactors in the US have had UN-planned outages of over one year. (ie. not planned when designed)

Nuclear makes no sense here, we can import it from the UK , let them take most of the risk, let them pay the subsidy (if they can't do it economically there when they can develope all the technoliogy in house and get preferrential treatment from the US then we in brown envelope land, with a history of political cronies grabbing land before it's zoned, haven't a prayer)


Nuclear power can be safe, clean and economic. But not all three together. Also the UK are far better enforcing health and safety than we are.

Capt'n Midnight

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* wind will require massive investment in the grid building pylons to the back arse of nowhere for new farms. 2.1 billion eirgrid will have to spend in next 3 years alone, nuclear on the other hand can be located at existing high voltage lines/ plants like moneypoint

* we only have so many good onshore wind locations, the lowest hanging fruit already have windfarms on them, which take up alot of land

Nuclear power plants will also have to be built in the arse end of nowhere :rolleyes:


wind farms don't take up land. you can still graze animals on them , what do they prevent happening on low value land at the top of hills ? It's not like anyone is going to build houses or grow crops up there and Coilte IIRC aren't allowed to grow tress above 500m

Arklow bank only has a fraction of the intended wind farm on it. 25MW out of 520MW.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

wind farms don't take up land. you can still graze animals on them , what do they prevent happening on low value land at the top of hills ?

Public access and recreation
And how many turbines are needed to get the same amount of electrcicty per year as one could get from a nuclear generator?

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Public access and recreation
And how many turbines are needed to get the same amount of electrcicty per year as one could get from a nuclear generator?

They are normally built on private land anyway, which is not open for public access or recreation.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

There is no cheap solution. The IEA has clearly stated the reality of peak oil and the pure volatility of fuel markets has its economic costs. It isn't that the era of fossil fuels is over, the era of cheap fossil fuels is over. Or rather that the era of cheap energy is over.

Well OFGEM and the National Audit Office say there are cheaper ways of reducing CO2 emissions; perhaps you'd like to let them know otherwise.
And what about shale gas and nuclear?

Macha wrote: »

The links you use seem to only see back up capacity as the only way to integrate renewables into a grid. In reality there are a number of other options including storage, including distributed storage, increases in dispatchable renewables and greater grid connectivity.

What storage mechanisms are you referring to here? Which valleys would we flood for hydro?
Wind isn't despatchable.
And as low and high pressure systems effect much of Europe at the same time, it's unlikely that our neighbours would want our wind.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

They are normally built on private land anyway, which is not open for public access or recreation.

So is public access and recreation effected by wind turbines? I thought we could hug them.

And how many turbines are needed to get the same amount of electricity per year as one could get from a nuclear generator?
Lets say they're 2MW turbines and the nuclear generator has a capacity of 1600MW