Chinese pay toxic price for a green world

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

Specifically, what information are you referring to?

"Under the Renewable Obligation (RO), suppliers have to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable generators and can hand that cost on to consumers. If they don’t, they pay a fine instead."
Well in this case, you and oh, Ofgem.

Chloe Pink

Capt.Midnight:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos

I have already acknowleged the reception to a link to the Daily Mail. It does reflect the article that started this thread.

Ghost Estate

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Capt.Midnight:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos

I have already acknowleged the reception to a link to the Daily Mail. It does relect the article that started this thread.

I must say it looks nice when it's finished. and they have a grand road that puts our N-roads to shame

after all what good is such a nice place if you can't get up there without ruining your car

Chloe Pink

Ghost Estate wrote: »

I must say it looks nice when it's finished. and they have a grand road that puts our N-roads to shame

after all what good is such a nice place if you can't get up there without ruining your car

And what's happened to the visitor centre at Delabole?

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I must apologise here, I should have written "Actually, adjust your figure of 200MW to 100MW (+/- 2.5% )and you're sort of on almost acceptable territory as far as I'm concerned."
You're correct the figures used are arbitrary but what is relevant is the relationship between the installed wind capacity and the total installed generating capacity.

No, it’s not relevant – it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

That the wind industry is driven by money and that their primary purpose is to promote wind energy; it is not to reduce CO2 emissions, provide security of supply and to provide affordable electricity.

And this differentiates the “wind industry” from other electricity-generating industries how exactly?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The term base load indicates 'continuous' supply. I am suggesting therefore that the reference to it on the chart indicates that the load factor of wind turbines has not been taken into account.

That would be an assumption on your part – personally, I find it extremely hard to believe, particularly when one considers that the data is largely in agreement with that found in other reports.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I didn't refer to grid connection, I referred to 'interconnetors, demand side management grid and storage facilities'...

...”required to mitigate 'to some extent' the variability of the wind”. Yes, that’s what you said. I responded by stating that wind is already generating electricity, demonstrating that the variability of wind is already been mitigated against.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The Eon Netz report refers to this 92%; it's the percentage of backup generation needed for wind.

And this has what to do with shale gas?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Where have I said that 'wind power by itself is a panacea' and where haven't I said that 'it isn't just one element in an integrated system.' Infact my references to backup confirm that I see it as only one part of an integrated system.

Your constant referral to the need for “back-up” generation implies that wind is being put forward as the silver bullet to solve all our energy needs, to be rolled out in isolation without a requirement for supporting thermal/nuclear generation and that, by extension, only in this scenario is wind generation cost-effective. But of course, nobody has put forward any such proposal and the costing of wind generation includes the fact that it co-exists with other generating technologies.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This thread has shown that the cost of the ROCs, the cost of the backup and the cost of the interconnectors, storage and demand side management have not been factored in to the charts brought to this thread.

For the last time, ROC’s represent a separate argument – they are exclusive to the UK. The so-called cost of pre-existing backup has already been dealt with as a non-argument. Interconnectors and demand side management are relevant to all forms of electricity generation, not just wind. Finally, the present cost-effectiveness of wind generation is not dependent on storage mechanisms.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

"Under the Renewable Obligation (RO), suppliers have to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable generators and can hand that cost on to consumers. If they don’t, they pay a fine instead."

Once again, this is a gross misrepresentation of how the renewable obligation operates, but, once again, I will point out that the ROC is specific to the UK – if you want to discuss its merits or otherwise, do so in another thread. I will not ask again.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry,

I have provided a link earlier in this thread showing that the RO applies to Northern Ireland.

And earlier exchanges on this thread have also revealed that the cost of backup generators was not factored into the charts under discussion.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Capt.Midnight:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that posting links in isolation does not constitute discussion? How is anyone supposed to know what point you are trying to convey?

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I have provided a link earlier in this thread showing that the RO applies to Northern Ireland.

How many times do you have to be told not to discuss moderation in-thread? You’ve earned yourself a vacation from the forum at this stage – please take advantage of your time off by reading the forum charter.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And earlier exchanges on this thread have also revealed that the cost of backup generators was not factored into the charts under discussion.

You’re right, the cost of “back-up generators” have not been factored in, because they are a completely flawed concept.

maninasia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

1600MW ?
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/weeklypeakdemand/
Two of these would provide PEAK demand during the summer months.

This would almost certainly be banned under competition laws since that would be 100% from a single supplier.


Also if one went off line, it's all the eggs in one basket. If however one went off line while the other was down for scheduled maintenance then we have a serious problem.

If you use smaller reactors then you loose economies of scale and more planning hurdles. If they are all on one site then one point of failure.


Pumped storage looks good. Back in the 30's we were world leaders in one energy technology, peat. We could look into others. We have some of the worlds highest tides - how much power could we get from the Shannon Basin ? Then neighbours reckon they could get up to 8,640MW from the Severn.

If we did make a break through in alternative energy then we could sell the technoogy to the Chinese to help with the balance of payments on the rare earths. Note also Bolivia hold half the world's lithium so we should look into their human rights record too. And Turkey who own lots of Boron (another light material that can be used to store energy)

Nuclear would be perfect for Ireland, with just one plant providing most of the electricity for daily use. For the rest we could use coal/oil/gas/renewables or the interconnector. With such a proportion of power from nuclear you wouldn't even need to be bothered wasting money on more wind or hydro power. Course it would never be allowed by NIMBYism and all types of special interests groups. There are many professional operators of nuclear power in Europe, US or Asia who could handle such a project for us, it does not need to be touched by the ESB directly. There is no real reason why a plant in Ireland would be more dangerous than UK (especially as newer technology has much higher levels of safety built in to the design) and in fact given the level of scrutiny that it would attract it would probably be run to a very high standard indeed. I was formerly very much against nuclear power but having looked at how Ireland gets it energy and the pros/cons of each energy source plus I'm currently living in a country with safely operating nuclear power plants that provide fairly cheap stable electricity I'm all for it in Ireland. Maybe the Irish solution is to go 'quids in' with the British and sponsor another generator at Sellafield, we get a proportion of our electricity from nuclear power already anyway.


As for server farms yes there is a case that the heat can be collected and reused in some form but not very efficiently. In addition the hotter the chips run the faster they will break down and the more cooling equipment required, I'm assuming that's the case anyway.

Macha

maninasia, I think the point Capt n' Midnight is making is that the currently available nuclear plants are too large for the Irish grid.

Smaller plants are currently being developed but they are not marketable yet.

maninasia

I got that, I just don't agree we need to build two plants, there is probably a happy medium there or another solution.

Thorium plants are in the news a bit- http://energyfromthorium.com/

Capt'n Midnight

maninasia wrote: »

I got that, I just don't agree we need to build two plants, there is probably a happy medium there or another solution.

Thorium plants are in the news a bit- http://energyfromthorium.com/

thorium looks nice on paper. US were trying it back in the 1950's

not sure if they can get more than unity - so it looks like porliferation of bomb grade material might not be as big a problem as I had supposed. But when the Indians have it sorted we'll still have to wait 15 years to get the plant built, so don't hold your breath.


Nuclear power is simple let the neighbours sort it out. At present there is an extra charge on UK electricity to pay for nuclear. We don't really have to about nuclear power over the interconnector until it's economic to produce in the UK.

We are a tiny market. Yesterday we only exceeded 4,000 MW from 17:00 to 19:00 and in the middle of the night load was only 2,5000 MW http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/

By comparison the installed capacity of Chernobyl was 4,000 MW and there many other larger nuclear power stations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations

Capt'n Midnight

Macha wrote: »

maninasia, I think the point Capt n' Midnight is making is that the currently available nuclear plants are too large for the Irish grid.

Smaller plants are currently being developed but they are not marketable yet.

the pebble reactors are only being pitched at places like alaska where it's uneconomic to supply fuel

until France or Finland are able to finish their next reactors on budget and on time then maybe we could consider considering that the optimum sizes of reactor can be economic, never mind smaller undeveloped ones

Hint, there is a reason why reactor sizes are large.

Capt'n Midnight

maninasia wrote: »

There are many professional operators of nuclear power in Europe, US or Asia who could handle such a project for us, it does not need to be touched by the ESB directly.

Enron setup a reactor in India didn't they ?

Maybe the Irish solution is to go 'quids in' with the British and sponsor another generator at Sellafield, we get a proportion of our electricity from nuclear power already anyway.

if it's economic then UK will use nuclear to sell us the power over the interconnector. I suspect the won't.

As for server farms yes there is a case that the heat can be collected and reused in some form but not very efficiently. In addition the hotter the chips run the faster they will break down and the more cooling equipment required, I'm assuming that's the case anyway.

very roughly as much power is used in cooling as in powering server farms. but here in Ireland our ambient air temperature never goes above what servers are designed to operate in

http://www.met.ie/climate/temperature.asp

Regarding extremes, the highest air temperature recorded in Ireland was + 33.3°C at Kilkenny Castle 26th June 1887. The record maximum during the 20th century is +32.5°C at Boora, Co. Offaly on 29th June 1976.

Ghost Estate

maninasia wrote: »

As for server farms yes there is a case that the heat can be collected and reused in some form but not very efficiently. In addition the hotter the chips run the faster they will break down and the more cooling equipment required, I'm assuming that's the case anyway.

If you put a server in your room it will contribute nearly 100% of the power it uses to heat up the room. I'd do it but couldn't listen to the fan on it, and would only bring in 20w anyway.

Maybe all this clout computing stuff is actually quite inefficient, at least if you keep your stuff onsite you get to keep the heat it generates rather than outsourcing it to some crowd who don't need it or need to use more energy to get rid of the heat.

A few years ago a motherboard with a stirling engine came out that uses the waste heat to power a fan. Maybe this or TEG modules can be used to convert some waste heat back into electricity

maninasia

Enron is a very poor example to bring up. GE Westinghouse, Siemens, Korean and Japanese conglomerates, Areva, .....

Capt'n Midnight

maninasia wrote: »

Enron is a very poor example to bring up. GE Westinghouse, Siemens, Korean and Japanese conglomerates, Areva, .....

Just pointing out that thee have been white elephants and in the case of that company the failings were kept hidden as long as possible. We haven't moved into a new era of nuclear construction yet. Any plant we get in the near future is likely to be too big or a prototype. Let the UK take all the risk, if and only if it's viable would they consider an extra nuke, again I suspect that they won't.

We were world leaders before with Ardnacrusha and peat, with renewables we could be again.

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

By comparison the installed capacity of Chernobyl was 4,000 MW and there many other larger nuclear power stations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations

On the other hand, Mühleberg, outside Bern, is rated at about 370MW, which would put it in the same sort of bracket as one of the three turbines at Moneypoint.

The replacement plant they're discussing for the same site is larger, but still comes in at "only" 1600MW (max. output)...which isn't all that much larger then the largest thermal plants in Ireland.

In the interests of balance, the costs for such plants are high. Some are saying the replacement for Mühleberg would come in around 13bn CHF (or just over 10bn EUR at today's exchange rates). One of the companies tendering for nuclear in Switzerland has estimated 2 plants for a total of 20bn CHF.

Assuming Ireland put its base load on nuclear, one could forsee comparable costs. There'd be additional costs, in that the Swiss have laws, regulations, watchdogs, etc. all established and in place. Also, Ireland has no land-based connection to either suppliers of raw materials, or receivers/reprocessors of waste....which means either a logistical nightmare (expensive) or a need to build additional infrastructure (even more expensive).

SO the plant size isn't a show-stopper...but the costs are still immense.

Capt'n Midnight

bonkey wrote: »

Also, Ireland has no land-based connection to either suppliers of raw materials, or receivers/reprocessors of waste....which means either a logistical nightmare (expensive) or a need to build additional infrastructure (even more expensive).

The volume of material to move would be far less than for Oil or Coal, and isn't the nearest reprocessing plant just across the pond ?

On the other hand, Mühleberg, outside Bern, is rated at about 370MW, which would put it in the same sort of bracket as one of the three turbines at Moneypoint.
...
SO the plant size isn't a show-stopper...but the costs are still immense./QUOTE]The Construction started on that 370MW plant in the 1960's so not really a good comparison. Also political support has swung back and forth over the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BChleberg_Nuclear_Power_Plant

One problem with nuclear is the huge investment upfront which means there will always be a temptation to keep it running to recover the costs, specially when you consider how much it would cost to decomission the plant.

Windfarms should be a bit easier to recycle

MalteseBarry

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

T

Windfarms should be a bit easier to recycle

My guess in windfarms will be left to rot as a continuing blot on the landscape. But who knows.

Ghost Estate

I think the anti-wind turbine crowd on here just don't like the look of them and will go to the ends of the earth to scrape up any few shreds of evidence that there might be something wrong with them.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

Your constant referral to the need for “back-up” generation implies that wind is being put forward as the silver bullet to solve all our energy needs, to be rolled out in isolation without a requirement for supporting thermal/nuclear generation and that, by extension, only in this scenario is wind generation cost-effective. But of course, nobody has put forward any such proposal and the costing of wind generation includes the fact that it co-exists with other generating technologies.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re right, the cost of “back-up generators” have not been factored in, because they are a completely flawed concept.

Your posts above contradict each other; the fact that two of the reports cited in this thread by Macha, do not include the cost of "co-existing generators" or "back up generators" and see fit to state as much as a limitation of their methodologies, might help clarify the situation and show both of your above statements to be incorrect i.e.
- the costs have not been factored in contrary to your first post above
- and the cost of "back-up generators" or "co-existing generators" is not a flawed concept contrary to your second post above, as it is deemed necessary to include reference to "back-up generators" or "co-existing generators" in the limitations of the methodologies

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

One problem with nuclear is the huge investment upfront which means there will always be a temptation to keep it running to recover the costs, specially when you consider how much it would cost to decomission the plant.

Windfarms should be a bit easier to recycle

Your post above makes it sound as though wind generators are an alternative to nuclear generators (rather than additional to).

Chloe Pink

Ghost Estate wrote: »

I think the anti-wind turbine crowd on here just don't like the look of them and will go to the ends of the earth to scrape up any few shreds of evidence that there might be something wrong with them.

The "look of" wind turbines isn't an "anti wind turbine crowd" thing; it's a key consideration for planners and the planning inspectorate when a wind turbine planning application comes before them; they have to consider whether the benefits outweigh the harm caused by the wind turbines.

The "Landscape impact" and "Visual impact" of wind turbine planning applications has led to many of them being refused at both district, county and inspectorate levels.
Other consultees such as National Parks, Natural England, and English Heritage, are also called upon to comment on the "look of " wind turbine planning applications.

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Your post above makes it sound as though wind generators are an alternative to nuclear generators (rather than additional to).

Both could be used with pumped storage.

I'm tired of pointing out that the average economic reactor size is about 40% of our base load. We don't have the capacity to cover for an extended outage of a ONE reactor that size. When the neighbours sort out their reactors and are able to export cheap electricity over the interconnecter then look again.

In the meantime nuclear is pie in the sky here. Even if it was economic and there was political support and the unions weren't against it you are still looking at the guts of 15 years before it produces power.

Also if the experience of the US is anything to go by it might be cheaper to reduce electrical demand by insulating buildings and refining building codes to reduce demand than sink a lot of capital into a possible white elephant.

maninasia

Something that produces most or all of the electricity the country needs could hardly be described as a 'white elephant'. But I agree that the likeliehood of a nuclear plant going ahead in the foreseeable future is doubtful, let's see how energy prices go up shall we?

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Your posts above contradict each other; the fact that two of the reports cited in this thread by Macha, do not include the cost of "co-existing generators" or "back up generators" and see fit to state as much as a limitation of their methodologies...

Let’s make this really simple. Suppose I build myself a 3.5 MW wind turbine at a cost of € [latex]X[/latex] to offset my electricity builds. Suppose the turbine produces, on average, 700 kW. Let’s say the turbine has a lifespan of 20 years. Let’s say that, over the turbine’s lifetime, I spend 10% of the original installation cost ([latex]X/10[/latex]) on maintenance. The cost of producing 1 kWh with my turbine will be approximately:

[latex]\displaystyle\frac{1.1 X}{700 \times 24 \times 365 \times 20}[/latex]

If this works out less than the likely cost of purchasing the equivalent amount of electricity from the national grid over the same time frame, then the turbine represents a good investment.

At what point do I need to factor in “back-up generators”?

Now, I can also factor in the fact that occasionally, let’s say 5% of the time, the turbine will produce more electricity than I need – I’m going to be generous and give it to my neighbours for free. This will obviously increase the cost of each kWh that the turbine produces, but once again, I have no need to consider any “back-up” generation in estimating the cost of this electricity to me.

MalteseBarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Let’s make this really simple. Suppose I build myself a 3.5 MW wind turbine at a cost of € [latex]X[/latex] to offset my electricity builds. Suppose the turbine produces, on average, 700 kW. Let’s say the turbine has a lifespan of 20 years. Let’s say that, over the turbine’s lifetime, I spend 10% of the original installation cost ([latex]X/10[/latex]) on maintenance. The cost of producing 1 kWh with my turbine will be approximately:

[latex]\displaystyle\frac{1.1 X}{700 \times 24 \times 365 \times 20}[/latex]

If this works out less than the likely cost of purchasing the equivalent amount of electricity from the national grid over the same time frame, then the turbine represents a good investment.

At what point do I need to factor in “back-up generators”?

Now, I can also factor in the fact that occasionally, let’s say 5% of the time, the turbine will produce more electricity than I need – I’m going to be generous and give it to my neighbours for free. This will obviously increase the cost of each kWh that the turbine produces, but once again, I have no need to consider any “back-up” generation in estimating the cost of this electricity to me.

The problem occurs when your turbine is not producing any electricity. That's likely to happen quite often, perhaps even about 70% of the time.

At those times, when the wind is not blowing sufficiently to produce electricity, you have two choices.

1) Have no electricity to power your fridges, freezers, television, computers and so on, and just do without, (the point you need to have some backup), or

2) Have some sort of backup to ensure you can power your domestic appliances

djpbarry

MalteseBarry wrote: »

The problem occurs when your turbine is not producing any electricity. That's likely to happen quite often, perhaps even about 70% of the time.

But I've already taken that into consideration - I'm installing a 3.5 MW turbine which I expect will produce 700 kW at any given point in time, on average.

MalteseBarry wrote: »

At those times, when the wind is not blowing sufficiently to produce electricity, you have two choices.

1) Have no electricity to power your fridges, freezers, television, computers and so on, and just do without, (the point you need to have some backup), or

2) Have some sort of backup to ensure you can power your domestic appliances

But at present, I'm drawing electricity from the national grid. If I install a wind turbine, I will draw less electricity from the grid - I never said anything about becoming totally reliant on the turbine.

Capt'n Midnight

not sure if it happens here but in the North of England there was a time when for some companies their most productive activity was not using electricity. They had contracts and it was cheaper for the utilities to pay them not to use electricity than generate it for them.

There are alternatives to needing backup generators, sometimes it's easier to ask big users to ease off at points of peak demand.