"Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all"

Sesshoumaru

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html?page=1

A very interesting article. While not ruling out wind and wave power, this German scientist appears to be saying there is in fact a limit to how much we can use. Take too much energy out of the system and we could do as much damage to the planet as we would by continuing to use fossil fuels.

Another argument in favour of nuclear? I think so!

Scofflaw

Why is it necessary for proponents of nuclear to try to do down renewables? The opposition in Ireland to nuclear isn't based on a preference for renewables, but on a dislike of nuclear - so is it just a case that peak oil is seen as a time when we have to adopt other energy choices, and running down renewables makes nuclear seem more like a necessary fact of life?

On the OP, I'm sure that's the case, since it's logically so - and on nuclear, I have no objection - I'm just interested in why people who favour nuclear seem to have adopted a tactic of attacking wind energy in particular, and renewables more generally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sesshoumaru

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why is it necessary for proponents of nuclear to try to do down renewables? The opposition in Ireland to nuclear isn't based on a preference for renewables, but on a dislike of nuclear - so is it just a case that peak oil is seen as a time when we have to adopt other energy choices, and running down renewables makes nuclear seem more like a necessary fact of life?

On the OP, I'm sure that's the case, since it's logically so - and on nuclear, I have no objection - I'm just interested in why people who favour nuclear seem to have adopted a tactic of attacking wind energy in particular, and renewables more generally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Did my post come across as an attack on wind power? Didn't really mean it like that! I'm in favour of using all available technology so we're not 100% dependent on any one of them. I would be more vocal about nuclear as I think it's the under utilised underdog in Ireland. We do after all already have wind farms and plans for more. But so far there is no serious planning being made for nuclear power.

Scofflaw

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Did my post come across as an attack on wind power? Didn't really mean it like that!

Sorry - nothing personal intended, it's just that there seems to be a current swell of pro-nuclear postings here and elsewhere (completely unrelated to the creation of the Better Environment with Nuclear Energy campaign, I'm sure), and most of them start by launching an attack on wind power.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I'm in favour of using all available technology so we're not 100% dependent on any one of them. I would be more vocal about nuclear as I think it's the under utilised underdog in Ireland. We do after all already have wind farms and plans for more. But so far there is no serious planning being made for nuclear power.

I think there's a couple of hurdles to clear, there. The first is that nuclear power is almost as much of a popular demon as our corporation tax is a sacred cow, courtesy of long years of viewing Windscale/Sellafield across the water as an evil British poisoner. The second is whether there's a genuine economic case for a nuclear plant as opposed to improving our energy import links with the UK and concentrating on renewables as a market where we can develop domestic expertise - one nuclear plant won't create an Irish nuclear industry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stephendevlin

Those Magnets that they use dont grow on trees either.

Antiquo

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html?page=1

A very interesting article. While not ruling out wind and wave power, this German scientist appears to be saying there is in fact a limit to how much we can use. Take too much energy out of the system and we could do as much damage to the planet as we would by continuing to use fossil fuels.

Another argument in favour of nuclear? I think so!

The areas on top of mountains where most of the proposed wind farms would be located had full coverage of trees a couple o thousand years ago. Trees catch and diffuse wind so what happened then?

Also we are cutting down acres of trees each day all off which play some part in preventing the wind movement.

The amount of wave energy hitting land is dependant on weather conditions mid ocean and as most proposed energy collectors are land/off shore based how would they affect heat transfer?



As a pro nuclear argument... I don't think that's what it is. However I also don't agree that our future energy needs can be fulfilled without it.

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think there's a couple of hurdles to clear, there. The first is that nuclear power is almost as much of a popular demon as our corporation tax is a sacred cow, courtesy of long years of viewing Windscale/Sellafield across the water as an evil British poisoner. The second is whether there's a genuine economic case for a nuclear plant as opposed to improving our energy import links with the UK and concentrating on renewables as a market where we can develop domestic expertise - one nuclear plant won't create an Irish nuclear industry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I wonder if the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield is quite the bogeyman some claim, and it would be interesting to see the results of a survey, or surveys, to see. Especially as I understand the radioactive isotopes used in hospitals to treat many cancers, fro example, come from places like Sellafield.

Most people I talk to understand that most alternative energy sources have limited use due to their unreliability. Waves don't happen in a calm sea, tides happen only twice a day, the wind doesn't always blow and so on.

Like it or not, we need a reliable predictable energy source to keep our homes and factories powered.

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

I wonder if the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield is quite the bogeyman some claim, and it would be interesting to see the results of a survey, or surveys, to see. Especially as I understand the radioactive isotopes used in hospitals to treat many cancers, fro example, come from places like Sellafield.

Most people I talk to understand that most alternative energy sources have limited use due to their unreliability. Waves don't happen in a calm sea, tides happen only twice a day, the wind doesn't always blow and so on.

Like it or not, we need a reliable predictable energy source to keep our homes and factories powered.

I agree with that. I don't have any issues with nuclear in general myself - the dangers are generally grossly over-rated compared to, for example, dam failures or climate change - but I don't really see the economic case for an Irish nuclear plant. If we're going to import the fuel, why not just import the energy?

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree with that. I don't have any issues with nuclear in general myself - the dangers are generally grossly over-rated compared to, for example, dam failures or climate change - but I don't really see the economic case for an Irish nuclear plant. If we're going to import the fuel, why not just import the energy?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Importing the energy is certainly attractive, except when one considers energy "security", as it's called. Being dependant on others to supply energy might leave us open to them not supplying it in times when our suppliers are, themselves, in short supply.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Importing the energy is certainly attractive, except when one considers energy "security", as it's called. Being dependant on others to supply energy might leave us open to them not supplying it in times when our suppliers are, themselves, in short supply.

That could be used as an argument against being dependent on the import of anything.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

That could be used as an argument against being dependent on the import of anything.

Such as the fuel for one's nuclear plant. Admittedly, one could stockpile fuel, whereas currently we can't stockpile energy itself to any great extent - and if we could, we wouldn't have intermittency concerns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Such as the fuel for one's nuclear plant. Admittedly, one could stockpile fuel, whereas currently we can't stockpile energy itself to any great extent - and if we could, we wouldn't have intermittency concerns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course there are many imponderables, and possibilities. At least, if we have the choice of stockpiling fuel, that's our choice. It's not our choice if we are reliant on other countries to stockpile fuel to supply us with energy.

I'm not saying these choices are easy. But our first priority is to ensure the continuity of our supply.

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

Of course there are many imponderables, and possibilities. At least, if we have the choice of stockpiling fuel, that's our choice. It's not our choice if we are reliant on other countries to stockpile fuel to supply us with energy.

I'm not saying these choices are easy. But our first priority is to ensure the continuity of our supply.

Which is to say, I think, that the economic case for a nuclear plant isn't the real reason for pursuing that option.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why is it necessary for proponents of nuclear to try to do down renewables? The opposition in Ireland to nuclear isn't based on a preference for renewables, but on a dislike of nuclear - so is it just a case that peak oil is seen as a time when we have to adopt other energy choices, and running down renewables makes nuclear seem more like a necessary fact of life?

On the OP, I'm sure that's the case, since it's logically so - and on nuclear, I have no objection - I'm just interested in why people who favour nuclear seem to have adopted a tactic of attacking wind energy in particular, and renewables more generally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Speaking only for myself, I "do down" renewables in general and wind in particular because I genuinely believe them to be highly questionable, total non-options, independently of the nuclear question. And that's being generous. Take for example the really cold spell: power demand surged because the temperature plummeted to record lows, I was back down the family home for Christmas and EVERYONE we knew lost either their water supply, or their main central heating, or in some cases both. My mother and I had to stock up on electric heaters and run them all at max just to stay alive.

It just so happened that the wind wasn't blowing ... Now, I'm sorry, but paying a fortune for a power supply that is going to let you down when you need it most, just doesn't make any sense to me. It is because weather based renewables can never be controlled or relied on that they will never replace traditional thermal or nuclear power stations. This (nuclear vs. thermal) is the choice.

The fact that I am pro-nuclear is irrelevant - I oppose wind, just as I do fossil fuels for other reasons. But even when I was an anti-nuke, I realised that I couldn't be credibly anti-everything and as such was as such, grudgingly Pro-coal.
As I likely would still be had I not learned the truth about nuclear power. And a few home truths about the fossil fuel alternative.

As to the matter of the comparison between nuclear and renewables, the same issue could be raised with the mainstream environmental movement - why do they virtually always attack nuclear power and paint renewables as an alternative? Why do they always feel it necessary to vastly overstate the potential of renewables (when they cost a kings ransom and are totally unreliable) and denigrate the nuclear option using logically insolvent arguments?

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

Speaking only for myself, I "do down" renewables in general and wind in particular because I genuinely believe them to be highly questionable, total non-options, independently of the nuclear question. And that's being generous. Take for example the really cold spell: power demand surged because the temperature plummeted to record lows, I was back down the family home for Christmas and EVERYONE we knew lost either their water supply, or their main central heating, or in some cases both. My mother and I had to stock up on electric heaters and run them all at max just to stay alive.

It just so happened that the wind wasn't blowing ... Now, I'm sorry, but paying a fortune for a power supply that is going to let you down when you need it most, just doesn't make any sense to me. It is because weather based renewables can never be controlled or relied on that they will never replace traditional thermal or nuclear power stations. This (nuclear vs. thermal) is the choice.

The fact that I am pro-nuclear is irrelevant - I oppose wind, just as I do fossil fuels for other reasons. But even when I was an anti-nuke, I realised that I couldn't be credibly anti-everything and as such was as such, grudgingly Pro-coal.
As I likely would still be had I not learned the truth about nuclear power. And a few home truths about the fossil fuel alternative.

As to the matter of the comparison between nuclear and renewables, the same issue could be raised with the mainstream environmental movement - why do they virtually always attack nuclear power and paint renewables as an alternative? Why do they always feel it necessary to vastly overstate the potential of renewables (when they cost a kings ransom and are totally unreliable) and denigrate the nuclear option using logically insolvent arguments?

That's a fair question, particularly since quite a few of the heavyweight environmental thinkers aren't opposed to nuclear.

I'm not personally opposed to nuclear either, and for the same reasons, but I don't really buy either the 'national energy security' argument or the economic argument for a nuclear power station in Ireland, which leaves no real argument for one.

Having said that, who exactly is supposed to be aiming for a 100% renewables-based energy sector? We're not trying to phase out emissions entirely at this stage, and thermal stations don't have to be dirty, so what's wrong with a pragmatic mix of the two? Are nuclear proponents sure that they aren't simply looking for a 'grand solution' which isn't actually required?

cordially,
Scofflaw

jill_valentine

Personally, while Nuclear is probably a good stop gap solution globally until we figure out something better, I just don't think it should be a full stop to the sentence. While I agree that the damage any given Nuclear station presents to the environment probably is grossly overstated, I do think it presents a wider environmental ethical problem until we can figure out what to do with the waste it produces. We have a responsibility to forthcoming generations to try and limit the number of Onkalo facilities we have to hand over to their stewardship.

In the meantime, I don't see why we shouldn't at least explore and develop renewable energy technologies as a relatively clean supplement. Maybe the existing ideas we have now will never shoulder the whole burden, but few people are actually expecting them to.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. A pragmatic mix, as Scofflaw says.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Of course there are many imponderables, and possibilities. At least, if we have the choice of stockpiling fuel, that's our choice. It's not our choice if we are reliant on other countries to stockpile fuel to supply us with energy.

But again, that could be used as an argument against reliance on fuel imports - how can Ireland stockpile fuel if other countries refuse to sell it? Importing fuel and importing energy are essentially equivalent from an “energy security” perspective – it’s just energy in different forms.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

It just so happened that the wind wasn't blowing ... Now, I'm sorry, but paying a fortune for a power supply that is going to let you down when you need it most, just doesn't make any sense to me.

But wind doesn’t cost a fortune – onshore wind has been shown repeatedly to be one of the cheapest available forms of generating electricity – so why not exploit that fact?

SeanW wrote: »

It is because weather based renewables can never be controlled or relied on that they will never replace traditional thermal or nuclear power stations.

Ok – who has suggested that Ireland should be 100% reliant on “weather-based” renewables?

SeanW wrote: »

As to the matter of the comparison between nuclear and renewables, the same issue could be raised with the mainstream environmental movement - why do they virtually always attack nuclear power and paint renewables as an alternative? Why do they always feel it necessary to vastly overstate the potential of renewables (when they cost a kings ransom and are totally unreliable) and denigrate the nuclear option using logically insolvent arguments?

Fair questions, but why do you virtually always take the opposing position? Why does it have to be a binary choice between nuclear and renewables?

Like Scofflaw, I have yet to see a rational argument for building a nuclear plant in Ireland. On the other hand, I have seen a number of studies showing that exploiting wind power (for example) makes a lot of sense.

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is to say, I think, that the economic case for a nuclear plant isn't the real reason for pursuing that option.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course there is a balance to be struck, and I'm sure if it were the case of having no power, or a regularly interrupted supply, the issue of cost would become a lower priority over reliability.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

But again, that could be used as an argument against reliance on fuel imports - how can Ireland stockpile fuel if other countries refuse to sell it? Importing fuel and importing energy are essentially equivalent from an “energy security” perspective – it’s just energy in different forms.

Regarding energy security the argument is very simple - it's easy to stockpile Uranium fuel, much more so than any fossil fuel, due to its solid nature and very high energy-to-material ratio. As it stands, with many European gas fields running out, we will be depending on a long gas pipeline from Russia for home heating and power generation.

djpbarry wrote: »

But wind doesn’t cost a fortune – onshore wind has been shown repeatedly to be one of the cheapest available forms of generating electricity – so why not exploit that fact?

But only when the wind is blowing, and your analysis probably ignores the cost of building a backup fossil fuel plant and keeping it on standby.

Ok – who has suggested that Ireland should be 100% reliant on “weather-based” renewables?

Any level of reliance is a problem when the technology's output is - literally - as changeable as the wind.

Fair questions, but why do you virtually always take the opposing position? Why does it have to be a binary choice between nuclear and renewables?

It isn't. And this is the key point - the binary choice is between nuclear and fossil fuels. Nowhere is this more evident than Germany. The article I linked to is a few years old now, but it's as relevant as ever - if not more so given how the Germans have reacted, at least in part, to the events at Fukushima. That is, the German's rejection of nuclear is leading them to expand their coal fired power generation at a rate second only to that of China, a movement only likely to accelerate.

Now, the Germans are textbook environmentalists - they've been doing all that stuff for years, building windmills, subsiding solar power, running experiments with biogas and stored hydro. In fact the University of Kassel launched an experimental "Virtual Power Plant" some years back that showed that a combination of solar, wind, biogas and pumped hydro could supply 100th of 1% of Germany's power needs at any given time. (link)

But in doing so they revealed the key weakness. To go from 0.01% to 100%, they would need 10,000 times more farmland for biogas, 10,000 times more mountain valleys for pumped hydro, 10,000 times more windmills and solar cells. In short, a non-option, hence the Germans are now expanding coal fired power generation.

On the other hand, I have seen a number of studies showing that exploiting wind power (for example) makes a lot of sense.

I'll respond to that by quoting something an anti-nuke said in the infrastructure forum:

yawnstretch wrote: »

You are being sold a service - not a solution.

Scofflaw wrote: »

and thermal stations don't have to be dirty, so what's wrong with a pragmatic mix of the two? Are nuclear proponents sure that they aren't simply looking for a 'grand solution' which isn't actually required?

Some believe that unless all of humanity makes a 180 degree turn, we face global climate catastrophe. Thermal stations do have to be dirty by their nature, there is a proposal for "Clean coal" but it's very costly and not very clean as the captured crap has to be sequestered very safely in perpetuity. As I outlined above, renewables might compliment more conventional forms of power but they will never replace them, so for me it comes back to a choice - fossil fuels or nuclear, which - like it not - we all make.

I just happen to believe very strongly that nuclear power is the better choice.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

But only when the wind is blowing, and your analysis probably ignores the cost of building a backup fossil fuel plant and keeping it on standby.

I’ll come back to the rest of your post later, but just on this point...

If wind farms are being installed to offset existing demand rather than meet new demand (as is largely the case in Ireland), then the “backup” already exists – there is no additional backup to be factored into the equation. In the same way, if I build myself a wind turbine to offset my electricity consumption from the national grid, I don’t need to build a “back-up”, because it already exists.

Again, this comes down to the tired old argument that we can’t “rely” on renewables, but nobody is suggesting that we replace thermal/nuclear capacity with renewables, so the argument is a non-starter. Of course, I am looking at this solely from an Irish point of view – if we expand the geographic range and consider the whole of Europe, for example, then we’re talking about a totally different scale, on which renewable probably could supply a constant base-load, assuming sufficient inter-connectivity and storage is in place.

Scofflaw

Some believe that unless all of humanity makes a 180 degree turn, we face global climate catastrophe. Thermal stations do have to be dirty by their nature, there is a proposal for "Clean coal" but it's very costly and not very clean as the captured crap has to be sequestered very safely in perpetuity.

Actually, "clean coal" isn't even that currently - it's more of a greenwash marketing slogan for just continuing to use coal anyway on the basis that it could theoretically be clean some day. I admit I was thinking more of gas-powered, but it's a reasonable point that we have a lot more coal than gas.

As I outlined above, renewables might compliment more conventional forms of power but they will never replace them, so for me it comes back to a choice - fossil fuels or nuclear, which - like it not - we all make.

I just happen to believe very strongly that nuclear power is the better choice.

Fair enough, but that's still not an argument for a nuclear plant in Ireland, which would still be reliant on imported fuel, and which would still probably be a single white elephant. Why not outsource energy generation? It seems to me that people advocating building a nuclear plant in Ireland are still thinking inside the same old box.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, "clean coal" isn't even that currently - it's more of a greenwash marketing slogan for just continuing to use coal anyway on the basis that it could theoretically be clean some day. I admit I was thinking more of gas-powered, but it's a reasonable point that we have a lot more coal than gas.



Fair enough, but that's still not an argument for a nuclear plant in Ireland, which would still be reliant on imported fuel, and which would still probably be a single white elephant. Why not outsource energy generation? It seems to me that people advocating building a nuclear plant in Ireland are still thinking inside the same old box.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You say the same old box and intend it as a criticism? It's just there are not many reliable ways to generate electricity, and until we find a new box to think about, it's hard to think outside it as out options are pretty limited.

Fossil fuels provide a constant and reliable source of power, and they can be transported fairly easily to the power plants when then are needed. They have the edge over "alternative" technologies which, almost always, are not able to produce a reliable and constant source of power.

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

You say the same old box and intend it as a criticism? It's just there are not many reliable ways to generate electricity, and until we find a new box to think about, it's hard to think outside it as out options are pretty limited.

It's a very specific comment, though, in relation to the question of building a nuclear plant in Ireland versus buying in nuclear-generated electricity.

edwinkane wrote: »

Fossil fuels provide a constant and reliable source of power, and they can be transported fairly easily to the power plants when then are needed. They have the edge over "alternative" technologies which, almost always, are not able to produce a reliable and constant source of power.

Yes, it's just a pity they're liable to wreck the planet's climate....

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a very specific comment, though, in relation to the question of building a nuclear plant in Ireland versus buying in nuclear-generated electricity.

Ok, but that has a number of drawbacks:

1. Increased transmission losses
2. A vulnerability in the power supply chain - if the undersea cable goes down, you have a problem.
3. Nuclear power creates jobs, sometimes many of them, often highly paid, outsourcing a nuclear power supply would mean those jobs would be created in another jurisdiction.

Yes, it's just a pity they're liable to wreck the planet's climate....

cordially,
Scofflaw

But because the renewables are unreliable and sporadic, it's a choice between the fossil fuels and nuclear. So why not go nuclear?

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

Ok, but that has a number of drawbacks:


[*]Increased transmission losses[]

Fair point.

SeanW wrote: »

[*]A vulnerability in the power supply chain - if the undersea cable goes down, you have a problem.

Same if the nuclear plant has to be shut down for whatever reason.

SeanW wrote: »

[*]Nuclear power creates jobs, sometimes many of them, often highly paid, outsourcing a nuclear power supply would mean those jobs would be created in another jurisdiction.

So? And that's something of an issue for me, because Ireland is unlikely to have a nuclear industry as such. Instead, it would most likely have a single plant, which will take in a smallish number of pretty specialised graduates plus some from abroad - or at least, I hope it will take in people from abroad, rather than becoming a sort of nuclear shrine with an insular priesthood.

SeanW wrote: »

But because the renewables are unreliable and sporadic, it's a choice between the fossil fuels and nuclear. So why not go nuclear?

I keep saying I don't have a problem with nuclear power.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a very specific comment, though, in relation to the question of building a nuclear plant in Ireland versus buying in nuclear-generated electricity.



Yes, it's just a pity they're liable to wreck the planet's climate....

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sure, it seems every power source has its pros and cons. I think "wreck" the planet's climate is a little harsh, but the fact is no one power source is without problems, and some problems more major than others.

Joey the lips

Very interesting read. The article..... However i do not think it brings us down the road ogf nuclear. I also agree with the comments reflecting that just because we need energy does not mean we cannot export it.

Generally electricity is only produced commerically by the nuclear industry. All other production is military. We can just buy the electricity from the interconnecting grid. Granted we will pay more but I cannot see how the greater price we pay will bwe off set by the saving in producing our own. The life time of nuclear waste and its storage security is a nightmare in itself. One which would mean i would be happeier to pay more to import fuel than produce it.

Having said that...Thats assuming fusion does not become a reality and we only have fission into the future,.

edwinkane

Joey the lips wrote: »

Very interesting read. The article..... However i do not think it brings us down the road ogf nuclear. I also agree with the comments reflecting that just because we need energy does not mean we cannot export it.

Generally electricity is only produced commerically by the nuclear industry. All other production is military. We can just buy the electricity from the interconnecting grid. Granted we will pay more but I cannot see how the greater price we pay will bwe off set by the saving in producing our own. The life time of nuclear waste and its storage security is a nightmare in itself. One which would mean i would be happeier to pay more to import fuel than produce it.

Having said that...Thats assuming fusion does not become a reality and we only have fission into the future,.

Why do you assume it costs more to purchase power than to produce it?

It may well be popularly thought that to deal with nuclear waste is a "nightmare", but in fact nuclear waste is useful. For example, it provides radioactive isotopes for chemotherapy and radiation therapy for millions of people every year, many of whom have their lives extended and the quality of their lives immeasurably improved. Many even have the therapies to thank for curing them of cancer.

Storing nuclear waste is not a nightmare, and is in an area where both the science and the procedures are well thought out and managed.

riffmongous

Does anyone have a link to an example of the amount of energy produced by a wind turbine during a high pressure cold period? I've seen the argument about wind energy being unreliable during highs so many times, I'd like to see the actual numbers out of interest.

edwinkane

riffmongous wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to an example of the amount of energy produced by a wind turbine during a high pressure cold period? I've seen the argument about wind energy being unreliable during highs so many times, I'd like to see the actual numbers out of interest.

A report came out recently showing that, here in the UK, our of +-3000 wind turbines built, the contribution to the power grid is around 3%. At times the contribution has been almost zero. I'm pretty sure if the economics are examined,. the cost to build these turbines ( likely to be in excess of £3 billion) would far outstrip the cost needed to build a conventional power station.

Macha

Not the case. SEAI report demonstrates wind actually reduces wholesale electricity prices in Ireland.

If you're "pretty sure", where are your links and sources?

wiseguy

riffmongous wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to an example of the amount of energy produced by a wind turbine during a high pressure cold period? I've seen the argument about wind energy being unreliable during highs so many times, I'd like to see the actual numbers out of interest.

At the bottom of this page, select dates you wish & click "download" in order to download the data for last December, it was fairly ugly that month.

Macha wrote: »

Not the case. SEAI report demonstrates wind actually reduces wholesale electricity prices in Ireland.

If you're "pretty sure", where are your links and sources?

Wind power: Even worse than you thought links to report based on UK grid data, someone should do one here based on Eirgrid data above

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

Not the case. SEAI report demonstrates wind actually reduces wholesale electricity prices in Ireland.

If you're "pretty sure", where are your links and sources?

It's great the wholesale price of electricity has come down in ireland. But the wholesale price is not the same as the cost, especially when one takes into account the capital cost and the cost of subsidies to ensure wind generation is viable. Without subsidies, which account for about 7% of our power bills in the UK, wind power would be too costly to make it viable, at current prices.

As wiseguy shows above, I too have seen the report which shows that wind farms produce less power than is often assumed, and they also don't necessarily produce it at the right times. For example, when it was most needed, during the heavy power demand in Nov-Dec 2010 freezing weather in the UK, the contribution of wind was negligible.

What I was "pretty sure" about was the mathematics. The capital cost of 3000 wind turbines at £100k each is £3 billion.

Macha

If you read the report, you'll see the cost of subsidies is factored in.

Most of the costs of construction are borne by the private sector.

I'm talking about Ireland here, not the UK.

wiseguy

Macha wrote: »

If you read the report, you'll see the cost of subsidies is factored in.

Most of the costs of construction are borne by the private sector.

I'm talking about Ireland here, not the UK.

In Ireland the generators do not have to pay for the the construction of the required grid infrastructure, often having to be build in remote areas for the farms. Eirgrid alone needs several billion over next few years just to connect existing farms in the Gate process, that is money that will have to come from the taxpayers. Make the generators pay the cost and see them squeal.


regarding the cold winter

Cold snap hits Ireland
The sustained cold weather in early January 2010 resulted in
temperatures of -10°C and below. A new record of 4,524 MW
for the Saturday Peak was recorded on 9th January. Wind
generation at this time was 145 MW.

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

If you read the report, you'll see the cost of subsidies is factored in.

Most of the costs of construction are borne by the private sector.

I'm talking about Ireland here, not the UK.

I have read the report. I'm also aware of how wind turbines are often financed and was involved in an irish company who financed wind turbines in California as far back as the 1990's.

The cost is the cost, whoever and however it is financed.

I'm talking about the value wind power has to make to power generation in society as a whole, and not just in the case of Ireland. Hence the report is interesting because it is full of facts and we can learn from it.

wiseguy

Macha wrote: »

Most of the costs of construction are borne by the private sector.

That is what they used to say about overbuilding houses here in Ireland, until the liabilities that resulted from the mis-allocated capital during the boom ended up being dumped on the taxpayer and people of the country.

edwinkane

wiseguy wrote: »

That is what they used to say about overbuilding houses here in Ireland, until the liabilities that resulted from the mis-allocated capital during the boom ended up being dumped on the taxpayer and people of the country.

To be fair, at least wind turbines have the ability to generate revenue over a period of time, which empty houses don't.

What is really interesting is that at peak demand times, wind capacity was negligible, "At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand". In other words, only about 5% of the wind turbines were producing power at the very times it was most needed.

wiseguy

edwinkane wrote: »

To be fair, at least wind turbines have the ability to generate revenue over a period of time, which empty houses don't.

I do not think the people who where building all those commercial and residential properties that are now empty, thought they would end-up being be empty due to lack of demand. There are strong parallels to be drawn. Wind has promised so much but looking at Eirgrid data has delivered so little at such high costs to everyone involved.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

At the bottom of this page, select dates you wish & click "download" in order to download the data for last December, it was fairly ugly that month.



Wind power: Even worse than you thought links to report based on UK grid data, someone should do one here based on Eirgrid data above

The Register is a very bad source for anything connected with the environment. Any source they choose is going be negative.

Shame, really, because I love their tech coverage - but their environmental stuff is completely Top Gear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Storing nuclear waste is not a nightmare...

Nuclear waste has to be stored indefinitely – that makes it an economic nightmare, the cost of which is usually born by taxpayers.

edwinkane wrote: »

What I was "pretty sure" about was the mathematics. The capital cost of 3000 wind turbines at £100k each is £3 billion.

You say that wind power meets about 3% of total UK demand? Ok, that equates to about 10.8 TWh annually. If we say the lifetime of a turbine is a conservative 20 years, that means the current installed operational capacity will produce a total of 216 TWh over it’s lifetime. At an outlay of £3 billion, that works out at about £0.01 per kWh, which is pretty damn cheap.

edwinkane wrote: »

I'm also aware of how wind turbines are often financed and was involved in an irish company who financed wind turbines in California as far back as the 1990's.

Sure you were.

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Register is a very bad source for anything connected with the environment. Any source they choose is going be negative.

Shame, really, because I love their tech coverage - but their environmental stuff is completely Top Gear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree which is why I recommend you read the report itself http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

Lets not get sidetracked from the facts by blaming an irrelevant article as an excuse for ignoring the facts.

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Register is a very bad source for anything connected with the environment. Any source they choose is going be negative.

Shame, really, because I love their tech coverage - but their environmental stuff is completely Top Gear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Register article links to the actual report if you bother to open and read the article. Which is exactly what my post said on the tin.

That's UK, our nearest neighbor with similar weather, one can always go to the Eirgrid site linked earlier, download the generation data, open in excel, and see for themselves the sorry state of wind generation, especially during last winter.

edit: here ya go

djpbarry

wiseguy wrote: »

That's UK, our nearest neighbor with similar weather, one can always go to the Eirgrid site linked earlier, download the generation data, open in excel, and see for themselves the sorry state of wind generation, especially during last winter.

Last year, wind generated about 2.6 TWh in Ireland - that represents just under 10% of total demand.

wiseguy

djpbarry wrote: »

Last year, wind generated about 2.6 TWh in Ireland - that represents just under 10% of total demand.

You don't get it do you? The total yearly generation figures are irrelevant when your factory, hospital or home has no electricity during peak hours due to a week long front causing freezing, as would have happened several times in last few winters if it was not for gas and oil.

The wind generation targets are 40% and then 60% of total. Which means the unreliability of wind is amplified the larger the installed base becomes. This means installing even more gas backup plants which would have to sit idle when the wind blows. These are not free either.

The country and the economy can not shutdown when the wind stops blowing or doesn't blow as strong or too strong. Which it does as seen in Eirgrid's own data and graph above.

Macha

wiseguy wrote: »

The wind generation targets are 40% and then 60% of total. Which means the unreliability of wind is amplified the larger the installed base becomes. This means installing even more gas backup plants which would have to sit idle when the wind blows. These are not free either.

Where are you getting those targets from? I've never seen them before.

wiseguy

Macha wrote: »

Where are you getting those targets from? I've never seen them before.

The 40% target is for 2020.

Ireland is on target to achieve its target of 40 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and in achieving that target, we will have one of highest levels of wind power as a percentage of system demand in Europe, according to the EirGrid Annual Renewable Report which was launched in Dublin by Energy Minister Eamon Ryan

In this document Eirgrid examine 60% portfolio in 2035

As an alternative to reducing carbon emissions with thermal generating technologies, all
three ‘high’ renewables portfolios are centred on much higher deployment of renewables
at 80% of total generation. These portfolios will enable us to examine alternatives in
dealing with the high levels of intermittency associated with the wind and marine sources.
We have limited wind generation to 60% because beyond this point, the requirements for
additional firm capacity backup appear to be onerous. A further 20% of renewables is
delivered by dedicated biomass-fired plant and a combination of marine and tidal
generation.
Gas-fired plant has been deployed only to levels necessary to maintain the same system
security standards as the other portfolios

Macha

wiseguy wrote: »

The 40% target is for 2020.

That target is for all renewables, not just wind.

wiseguy wrote: »

In this document Eirgrid examine 60% portfolio in 2035

That is a scenario analysis, not a target.

djpbarry

wiseguy wrote: »

You don't get it do you? The total yearly generation figures are irrelevant when your factory, hospital or home has no electricity during peak hours due to a week long front causing freezing, as would have happened several times in last few winters if it was not for gas and oil.

What don’t I get? The country has gas and oil-fired generating capacity, so what’s the problem? Why not have this complimented by wind-generation? Given that Ireland is one of the windiest locations on the planet, that would seem to make a lot of economic sense. If wind produces 2.3 TWh per annum, that’s about 1.35 million barrels of oil (or gas equivalent) that doesn’t need to be imported – how is that a bad thing?

wiseguy

djpbarry wrote: »

What don’t I get? The country has gas and oil-fired generating capacity, so what’s the problem? Why not have this complimented by wind-generation? Given that Ireland is one of the windiest locations on the planet, that would seem to make a lot of economic sense. If wind produces 2.3 TWh per annum, that’s about 1.35 million barrels of oil (or gas equivalent) that doesn’t need to be imported – how is that a bad thing?

Wind farms are neither free nor grow out of the ground, there are costs involved, these costs are also front-loaded at a time when credit is scarce and comes at high interest, all of which you are completely ignoring.
Having to build new power lines to remote areas costs money, having to build a MW of gas backup for every MW of wind costs money, having to idle and maintain gas plants costs money.
These costs are either paid directly by taxpayers and/or indirectly by everyone who pays an electricity bill whether private or business.

An once again, the country can not just shut down when the wind stops blowing, the 2020 targets also call for gas generation to be under 50%, so where will the electricity come from when the wind doesn't blow, which as seen from Eirgrid's own data is quite often.