Nuclear power 'would cost too much' -- ESRI

Amhran Nua

As I've been pointing out to nuclear advocates for a while now, the ESRI has released a statement making clear that nuclear power is not economically feasable in Ireland. I should say at this point I have no philosophical, moral, or related objections to nuclear power - it does have it's place, mostly where there are no alternatives. Here, we have several great alternatives in the form of renewables.

"Nuclear (power) will never be economic. The large size of standard plants makes them uneconomic and because onshore wind is already so successful, this will make investment in new nuclear plants uneconomic.

"Public concern about nuclear generation would mean that even if the economic considerations favoured nuclear, any decision to build a nuclear plant would be likely to generate major opposition," he added.

Nuclear costs between two and three times that of onshore wind per produced watt. It's not religious, if I thought it was worth it I'd be supporting nuclear too. But let's get this point across once and for all. Nuclear is way too expensive.

SeanW

Amhran Nua wrote: »

As I've been pointing out to nuclear advocates for a while now, the ESRI has released a statement making clear that nuclear power is not economically feasable in Ireland. I should say at this point I have no philosophical, moral, or related objections to nuclear power - it does have it's place, mostly where there are no alternatives. Here, we have several great alternatives in the form of renewables.
Nuclear costs between two and three times that of onshore wind per produced watt. It's not religious, if I thought it was worth it I'd be supporting nuclear too. But let's get this point across once and for all. Nuclear is way too expensive.

Yes, onshore wind has been such a runaway success. Right now, and to a lesser extent for most of today, those lovely windfarms have been producing nothing of consequence, as it was during the crisis cold snap of Christmas 2010, when many people threw on everything electric to stay alive, and (surprise surprise) there was no wind. Who'da thunk it :pac:

Renewables are not a solution in and of themselves, without a serious power storage solution not yet invented, as the Germans are finding out. (link)

Finally, I don't what "nuclear advocates" you have been talking to, but I for one have NEVER suggested building a conventional, large scale reactor plant. My favoured stratetgy would involve multiple small reactors like Pebble Bed Reactors or Toshiba 4S nuclear batteries, coming as they do in denominations as low as 10MW.

"Public concern about nuclear generation would mean that even if the economic considerations favoured nuclear, any decision to build a nuclear plant would be likely to generate major opposition," he added

I'll concede this point, but only because public opposition is largely down to an irrational fear of radiation, assisted by a so-called environmental movement that:

1. Routinely makes up data and twists facts in a continuous campaign of scaremongering.
2. Cannot see the bigger picture beyond their "renewables uber alles" fairy tale world.

Corsendonk

Don't they want to do away with grants for sustainable energy anyway because with the recession we have no demand for extra capacity? Piece on the RTE radio news this evening. Sounds like we don't need an interconnector then.

Cookie_Monster

because onshore wind is already so successful

really.... has it... really...

dynamick

SeanW wrote: »

Renewables are not a solution in and of themselves,

You are arguing a point that nobody has made. Of course wind cannot provide all our electricity because the wind doesn't always blow. A child could tell you that.

The question is whether adding wind to the energy generation mix is a good thing, whether it reduces prices. Another question is what is the optimum quantity of wind on a grid.

The answer to these questions depends on how often the wind blows in a given region, the future price of fossil fuels and the costs of capital to the type of private company that builds wind farms. Like most everything else, it's not as simple as "wind good" or "wind bad".

Erigrid in a recent report has found that wind capacity is reducing wholesale electricity costs in Ireland by an amount approximately equal to the PSO levy plus the cost of grid adaptation for wind. In other words, the net effect of wind on electricity prices in ireland is about nil. However, adding wind capacity to the grid is insuring ireland against future rises in gas and oil prices.

My favoured stratetgy would involve multiple small reactors like Pebble Bed Reactors or Toshiba 4S nuclear batteries, coming as they do in denominations as low as 10MW.

You make it sound like buying a bag of sugar in your desired weight. My understanding is that these technologies are all at experimental stage and that there is no commercial installation of any Toshiba 4S reactor or pebble bed reactor in the world. We might as well say that we should start using wave technology because it looks great on paper or in my lab.

I think this report from John Fitzgerald was fair and reasonable.

SeanW

dynamick wrote: »

You are arguing a point that nobody has made. Of course wind cannot provide all our electricity because the wind doesn't always blow. A child could tell you that.

You might try telling that to Greenpeace and many of the worlds Green Parties. To hear some of them talk, the only reason humanity is not now living in a clean green utopia with windmills, solar panels and fluffy sunflowers is because those evil coal and nuclear companies wouldn't make as much money with renewables.

Like most everything else, it's not as simple as "wind good" or "wind bad".

You are, of course, absolutely right - but I see far too much "wind great" and "nuclear evil" to allow excessive renewables optimism to go unchallenged.

As your next paragraph states, the question of renewables is very a question unto itself, independent of many other factors.

Chief of those factors, I have been trying to point out, is the need to choose between traditional thermal energy and nuclear energy.
A choice recently made by Germany for example (who are going hell for leather building new coal power plants largely to replace their nuclear plants which they're decommissioning), an example which I've talked about for years yet no-one who opposes nuclear energy has ever engaged the point.
All I ever get is some irrelevant psychobabble about renewables.

You make it sound like buying a bag of sugar in your desired weight. My understanding is that these technologies are all at experimental stage and that there is no commercial installation of any Toshiba 4S reactor or pebble bed reactor in the world. We might as well say that we should start using wave technology because it looks great on paper or in my lab.

To a certain extent, it is. By the time Ireland is ready to address the question rationally and without FUD - if ever - it is likely that some plants of this type will be in production, and perhaps in obsolescence.

By the time the so-called environmentalists stop spreading anti-nuclear propaganda ... electricity itself will probably be obsolete by that stage!

Amhran Nua

SeanW wrote: »

A choice recently made by Germany for example (who are going hell for leather building new coal power plants largely to replace their nuclear plants which they're decommissioning), an example which I've talked about for years yet no-one who opposes nuclear energy has ever engaged the point.

Germany massively subsidises its coal mining industry, which employs many people there, I would guess new coal plants are another part of that effort. Consider your point engaged sir, and let us never speak of this again!

dynamick

SeanW wrote: »

You might try telling that to Greenpeace and many of the worlds Green Parties. To hear some of them talk, the only reason humanity is not now living in a clean green utopia with windmills, solar panels and fluffy sunflowers is because those evil coal and nuclear companies wouldn't make as much money with renewables.

If you want to argue against points that are not made by any of the posters in the thread or in the report that is the subject of the thread, then it would help if you sourced these statements. Show me where Greenpeace or the world's green parties said that:

the only reason humanity is not now living in a clean green utopia with windmills, solar panels and fluffy sunflowers is because those evil coal and nuclear companies wouldn't make as much money with renewables.

If you can't source these statements then you can't blame people for guessing that you are inventing statements that you disagree with and attributing them to nebulous opponents.

You are, of course, absolutely right - but I see far too much "wind great" and "nuclear evil" to allow excessive renewables optimism to go unchallenged.

How would you characterise your own optimism for nuclear power for Ireland? You have said that you favour an energy policy for Ireland based on a collection of small nuclear reactors using unproven technologies.

the need to choose between traditional thermal energy and nuclear energy.

Have you anything to say about this choice?

Are you optimistic about CCS, Biomass, Waste-to-energy, Geothermal, Clean coal, wave power? Or are you just optimistic about nuclear fission and fusion technologies? Can you see any drawbacks or risks with nuclear technology?

SeanW

dynamick wrote: »

If you want to argue against points that are not made by any of the posters in the thread or in the report that is the subject of the thread, then it would help if you sourced these statements. Show me where Greenpeace or the world's green parties said that:

If you can't source these statements then you can't blame people for guessing that you are inventing statements that you disagree with and attributing them to nebulous opponents.

Ok, how about this: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/choosing-safe-energy/blog/34455
Notice in their photo slideshow (6/15) they've got a wind farm being kissed by a beautiful rainbow. Needless to say, any photographs relating nuclear energy would be covered in evil looking images and menacing looking radiation symbols.

Then the fanboys chime in with their comments and my head feels like it's going to explode. For example:
Livi: The wind farm in Makara, Wellington makes enough power for the whole of Wellington city.
Dannycnd: I want to see a wind turbine and solar panals on every house in the UK.The government need to be pushing to subsidise more and more towards the cost.Rather then power companies build a power station they could fit solar and wind power to my house

How would you characterise your own optimism for nuclear power for Ireland? You have said that you favour an energy policy for Ireland based on a collection of small nuclear reactors using unproven technologies.

Nuclear power will be a taboo in Ireland for many years to come. An optimistic projection would say that these technologies will have matured, perhaps for a long time, by the time our situation changes.

But that is an optimistic projection which I do not hold - I fully expect that Ireland will continue down its current path of near exclusive dependence on fossil fuels for the long term - regardless of the cost to our pockets, our environment or our national security. I promote nuclear energy only in the very limited hope of changing this for the better.

Have you anything to say about this choice?

Are you optimistic about CCS, Biomass, Waste-to-energy, Geothermal, Clean coal, wave power? Or are you just optimistic about nuclear fission and fusion technologies? Can you see any drawbacks or risks with nuclear technology?

I have plenty to say about this choice - first of all, I oppose all fossil fuels for electricity generation as a matter of course. Each type, coal, gas and oil, (as well as peat, which isn't a fossil fuel) have their pluses and minuses, but overall, mostly minuses.

Carbon Capture is something I'll put in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. Any captured carbon must be safely sequestered FOREVER, unlike nuclear waste which will decay over time.
I have the same opinion of "Clean" coal, I'm very dubious. My mother and grandparents had a saying "you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear." Coal is a fundamentally filthy business, bulky requiring heavy transportation logistics, and full of vile toxins, radioactivity, acid rain compounds, particle matter, carbon dioxide etc.
"Clean" coal may well prove to be an expensive oxymoron.

I also oppose - very strongly - the use of biomass electricity. For one thing, I imagine that to gain a significant percentage of our power requirements from biofuels would require more farmland than we have and I imagine that applies worldwide. Furthermore I think that to even attempt to do would be extremely irresponsible for a number of reasons.

1. Fertiliser components are mined, and will run out in a few decades, when that happens, agricultural crop outputs will fall by 2/3. Reliance on biofuel-electricity on a large scale would aggravate this problem and worsen for ourselves its final impact.
2. Land - I mentioned this above - biofuels require lots of farmland, which, as the worlds population increases, will be a scare commodity. Again, wasting farmland to make electricity strikes me as irresponsible, even if there is enough in some places, which I doubt.
3. Opportunity cost. Even if both the fertiliser and land limitations were smaller problems, i.e. not deal breakers, there is still the opportunity cost of not using the land for something else. That could be growing food, growing biofuel crops for transport (to replace scare petroleum oil), use as a nature reserve, etc.
   Take a hypothetical: You are given X amount of farmland, and a mandate to supply Y amount of electric MW/h, but you can do so in any way you see fit.
   I would - without a second thought - look to build a nuclear plant on a few acres of the land and commit the rest to a new wildlife sanctuary.

Waste to Energy, great to a point but we want people to "Reduce, Re-Use and Recycle" especially paper and cardboard, which has a high energy content. So it's very limited.

Wave power? Although I'd have to put that in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category, it would certainly be nice if it ever did become a real solution.

Can I see drawbacks with nuclear technology? Of course, nothing in life is perfect. To quote Oscar the Grouch from a Sesame Street movie I saw a child "Something is wrong with everything, except the way I sing!"

I just happen to believe quite passionately that nuclear energy is the only good option from a very bad lot.

SeanW

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Germany ... let us never speak of this again!

I find that attitude very prevalent on these forums :P

Seriously though, I don't see what other choice the Germans have - they don't want nuclear power anymore and if they depended on gas, they would basically be vassals of Russia. The politics seems secondary to a much larger point.

dynamick

SeanW wrote: »

I just happen to believe quite passionately that nuclear energy is the only good option from a very bad lot.

How is your opinion of nuclear power any different to somebody who tells you that
'I just happen to believe quite passionately that wind power is the only good option from a very bad lot' ? Are you not playing the same game as your opponents, just wearing a different strip?

Could you accept that the optimal method of generating electricity:

• May be to use a mix of generation technologies?
• May depend on local available resources?
• May depend on interconnect capacity?
• May change over time as resources are depleted or discovered?

In other words, can you see that a debate about the choice of method of power generation may be more complex than a passionate belief that one technology trumps all others?

SeanW

dynamick wrote: »

How is your opinion of nuclear power any different to somebody who tells you that
'I just happen to believe quite passionately that wind power is the only good option from a very bad lot' ? Are you not playing the same game as your opponents, just wearing a different strip?

I thought I explained why I preferred the nuclear option in my last post!

Could you accept that the optimal method of generating electricity:

• May be to use a mix of generation technologies?
• May depend on local available resources?
• May depend on interconnect capacity?
• May change over time as resources are depleted or discovered?

In other words, can you see that a debate about the choice of method of power generation may be more complex than a passionate belief that one technology trumps all others?

Obviously - I'm not looking for 100% nuclear energy everywhere, to do so would be illogical. Obviously some of those factors you mentioned would be relevant.

Actually, my all time favourite energy source is hydroelectricity, but that cannot reasonably be expanded much further, we've got all we're going to get from that, unfortunately.
I've already stated that I'd be happy if wave power proved to be practical.
I've also stated waste to energy would be a good idea in preference to continued mass land-filling.
Obviously there are other examples as well, for example in warmer parts of the world where there is a strong correlation between solar radiation and power usage (i.e. for air conditioning) it would make sense to add significant solar electricity to the mix, provided photovoltaic technology is not used as that requires rare earths.

After accounting for cases like the above, yes, it's clear to me that nuclear energy is indeed the best of a bad lot, or at least among the best.

In Ireland's case, we have no significant energy resources except peat, the use of which for power generation I oppose, very little gas and I'm not counting the wind as we can't rely on it and don't have complementary storage. Most of our energy will be imported, though two energy exploration companies thought we had some uranium in Donegal, but our last Minster for the Environment scuttled their exploration licenses.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

...I'm not counting the wind as we can't rely on it and don't have complementary storage.

And yet, wind has provided almost 12% of Ireland's electricity so far this year.

Chloe Pink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

As I've been pointing out to nuclear advocates for a while now, the ESRI has released a statement making clear that nuclear power is not economically feasable in Ireland. I should say at this point I have no philosophical, moral, or related objections to nuclear power - it does have it's place, mostly where there are no alternatives. Here, we have several great alternatives in the form of renewables.

With the exception of biomass which is despatchable, renewable generators are not "alternatives"; they are "additional" generators.

The tabloid article you point to above also says,
"The REFIT scheme for technologies other than onshore wind should be ended. Offshore wind, tidal and wave power are all technologies that are worth researching as they could possibly eventually prove cost effective in some locations in the world," the report says.
"It could make sense to provide some limited public support for research in this area, however, the scale of the support should recognise that there is no guarantee that new developments in this field will benefit Ireland.""

This post would be more valuable if it took into account the full tabloid article and even better still if it pointed to and took into account the report being referred to instead of a tabloids' extracts of the report.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Nuclear costs between two and three times that of onshore wind per produced watt. It's not religious, if I thought it was worth it I'd be supporting nuclear too. But let's get this point across once and for all. Nuclear is way too expensive.

Looking at the Wiki link we're pointed to, costings vary according to the report(s) looked at and what is and isn't taken into account in the report(s).
For example, the Wiki link says,
"A recent study shows the current generating costs of wind, nuclear and coal plant in the UK which stills shows nuclear the cheapest, but not by a great a margin.[58]"

For another example, the Wiki link points to a Wall Street Journal article. Although as quoted in Wiki, it says,
"(An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized.) For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59."
the Wall Street Journal article also says,
"The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough."
and
"By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives.""

Rather than linking to Wiki, please would you link to the report you're referring to pointing out what is and isn't included in the costings.

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, wind has provided almost 12% of Ireland's electricity so far this year.

Please would you provide a link supporting this?

Amhran Nua

Chloe Pink wrote: »

With the exception of biomass which is despatchable, renewable generators are not "alternatives"; they are "additional" generators.

The tabloid article you point to above also says,
"The REFIT scheme for technologies other than onshore wind should be ended. Offshore wind, tidal and wave power are all technologies that are worth researching as they could possibly eventually prove cost effective in some locations in the world," the report says.
"It could make sense to provide some limited public support for research in this area, however, the scale of the support should recognise that there is no guarantee that new developments in this field will benefit Ireland.""

This post would be more valuable if it took into account the full tabloid article and even better still if it pointed to and took into account the report being referred to instead of a tabloids' extracts of the report.



Looking at the Wiki link we're pointed to, costings vary according to the report(s) looked at and what is and isn't taken into account in the report(s).
For example, the Wiki link says,
"A recent study shows the current generating costs of wind, nuclear and coal plant in the UK which stills shows nuclear the cheapest, but not by a great a margin.[58]"

For another example, the Wiki link points to a Wall Street Journal article. Although as quoted in Wiki, it says,
"(An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized.) For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59."
the Wall Street Journal article also says,
"The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough."
and
"By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives.""

Rather than linking to Wiki, please would you link to the report you're referring to pointing out what is and isn't included in the costings.

Listen the ESRI said nuclear will never be economical here. They can be reached at 01 863 2000 if you would like to discuss it further. Actually disputing the bare financial figures to build real world nuclear plants (and ignoring the part where people in the US are being taxed to subsidise them before construction even starts) is the final indication for me that I'm not dealing with a rational actor, so eh, good luck with that.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This post would be more valuable if it took into account the full tabloid article and even better still if it pointed to and took into account the report being referred to instead of a tabloids' extracts of the report.
...
Rather than linking to Wiki, please would you link to the report you're referring to pointing out what is and isn't included in the costings.

Less of the back-seat modding please.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Actually disputing the bare financial figures to build real world nuclear plants (and ignoring the part where people in the US are being taxed to subsidise them before construction even starts) is the final indication for me that I'm not dealing with a rational actor...

Less of the personal remarks please.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Please would you provide a link supporting this?

The raw data on which my estimate is based is available on the Eirgrid website here and here.

Chloe Pink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Listen the ESRI said nuclear will never be economical here.

Have I said otherwise?

My point is that the report is not just about nuclear being uneconomical in Ireland and about onshore wind being so successful. These aspects form only a small section of the report and the latter half of the quote is put into context quite considerably in other parts of the report.

I like the report. It's about energy for Ireland and it brings together multiple considerations for Ireland. Its coverage includes:
shale gas
optimum penetration levels of wind
subsidy of renewables
interconnectors
efficiency
climate change
CO2 emissions
backup generators
policy developments
etc

Well worth reading for anyone interested in Ireland's energy:
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3252
(from this page: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/)

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

The raw data on which my estimate is based is available on the Eirgrid website here and here.

"Figure 1. Source of primary energy, 2009, % by Fuel Source" shows total renewables as 4% in the ESRI report:
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3252

dynamick

Chloe Pink wrote: »

"Figure 1. Source of primary energy, 2009, % by Fuel Source" shows total renewables as 4% in the ESRI report:
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3252

You are confusing 'primary energy' and 'electricity production'. They are different measures.

Recent electricity production balance stats for Ireland are here:
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf

With the exception of biomass which is despatchable, renewable generators are not "alternatives"; they are "additional" generators.

Hydro is renewable and dispatchable

Amhran Nua

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Have I said otherwise?

My point is that the report is not just about nuclear being uneconomical in Ireland and about onshore wind being so successful.

Fair enough, I read your comment as refuting the financial facts supplied. There are a lot of new and exciting technologies coming out these days, which the ESRI report is not meant to cover, but bear analysis anyway, I've another thread in this forum about dynamic tidal for example. Harnessing the very breath of the ocean, now that's a challenge to get excited about.

Chloe Pink

dynamick wrote: »

You are confusing 'primary energy' and 'electricity production'. They are different measures.

Recent electricity production balance stats for Ireland are here:
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf

Thank you for clarifying. Is 'electricity production' the same as "Figure 2: Electricity by Fuel, 2009, Share of Electricity Generated by Fuel Used, %" at this link: http://www.esri.ie/publications/late...ex.xml?id=3252
This would fit more with djpbarry's figure.

dynamick wrote: »

Hydro is renewable and dispatchable

Indeed it is, an unintentional slip on my behalf, apologies and thank you again.

ffitzer

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, wind has provided almost 12% of Ireland's electricity so far this year.

First post. Sorry I don't mean to annoy - an unrelated google search brought me to this page. I was very heartened to read this 12% - it's been a while since I looked at the then depressing wind power numbers.

I'd hoped that better geographic spread would have allowed renewable energy to make a contribution. Sadly, the situation hasn't improved but kudos to Eirgrid for providing the data.

Although it doesn't look too bad:


Larger.

. . . when you add up the figures it's godawful. Djpbarry's 12% figure seems to be the total demand divided by the total generated. Which would only be relevant if you lived your life according to how the wind blows.

Realistically, looking at the real-time figures (they report every 15 minutes) it's only 3%.

But it's worse than that - there are such long periods with practically zero energy coming from the turbines that they are completely useless. Fossil fuel generators have to be kept ticking over even when the windmills are running at full steam or the grid would fail.

Short of some gigantic new hydroelectric projects for the wind turbines to fill up they are worse than useless.

djpbarry

ffitzer wrote: »

Djpbarry's 12% figure seems to be the total demand divided by the total generated. Which would only be relevant if you lived your life according to how the wind blows.

How so? How often (if ever) does wind generation exceed system demand?

ffitzer wrote: »

Realistically, looking at the real-time figures (they report every 15 minutes) it's only 3%.

How did you arrive at a figure of 3%?

ffitzer

djpbarry wrote: »

How so? How often (if ever) does wind generation exceed system demand?
How did you arrive at a figure of 3%?

Does it matter? If the point of the windmills was to stave of global warming then they are a failure. If they were designed to provide energy security they also fail. The amount of fuel saved in the power plants that are idling, waiting to rescue these windmills must be meagre.

Each reported demand figure divided by the wind generation at that time is where the 3% comes from. It's quite possible I've got the wrong end of the stick on that, please enlighten me if this is so. As I see it now SEAI saying ~14% of electricity comes from wind is about as accurate as it is deceptive.

dynamick

ffitzer wrote: »

. . . when you add up the figures it's godawful. ..Realistically, looking at the real-time figures (they report every 15 minutes) it's only 3%.

These are the official figures for electricity generation in Ireland: (2010 data is due this month)
Renewable Electricity as Percentage of Gross Electricity Consumption
|1990 |1995 |2000 |2005 |2006 |2007 |2008 |2009(P)
Renewables % of Gross Electricity |4.9 |4.1 |5.0 |6.8 |8.6 |9.4 |11.9 |14.4
Hydro |4.9 |4.1 |3.6 |2.3 |2.5 |2.3 |3.3 |3.2
Wind |- |0.1 |1.0 |4.0 |5.6 |6.7 |8.1 |10.5
Biomass |- |- |0.4 |0.5 |0.4 |0.5 |0.5 |0.6
Source: SEAI and Eirgrid

But it's worse than that - there are such long periods with practically zero energy coming from the turbines that they are completely useless. Fossil fuel generators have to be kept ticking over even when the windmills are running at full steam or the grid would fail.

Modern gas turbines are designed for dispatchability to match the intermittency of wind. While the wind is blowing, the gas power station is not burning fuel.

Short of some gigantic new hydroelectric projects for the wind turbines to fill up they are worse than useless.

We are back to the 'wind bad' argument.

There are several good and bad things about using wind in Ireland to generate electricity.

Amongst the reasons to add additional wind power to the irish grid are:

• Ireland has a legally binding target for share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy by 2020 of 16% per http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:01:EN:HTML - wind power will help meet this target
• Adding wind capacity to the grid reduces the wholesale cost of electricity through increased supply.
• Having a substantial portion of our electricity from wind provides a partial hedge of future fuel price rises.
• The viability of wind is helped by interconnect capacity which is rapidly growing and will continue to grow in line with european policy.
• Wind generation cost is falling while other technologies like nuclear is rising
• Ireland is one of the windiest countries in Europe.

djpbarry

ffitzer wrote: »

Does it matter? If the point of the windmills was to stave of global warming then they are a failure. If they were designed to provide energy security they also fail. The amount of fuel saved in the power plants that are idling, waiting to rescue these windmills must be meagre.

You’re not doing a very good job of explaining why.

ffitzer wrote: »

Each reported demand figure divided by the wind generation at that time is where the 3% comes from.

At what time? You’re just picking a single time-point in isolation?

ffitzer wrote: »

As I see it now SEAI saying ~14% of electricity comes from wind is about as accurate as it is deceptive.

I think it’s probably closer to 10-12 %, but I’m still not sure why that’s inaccurate?

ffitzer

Dynamick,

I'm sorry, I don't keep up with these developments since every time I look at these numbers it makes me want to tear my hair out.

Does Ireland have these modern gas turbines that can stop and start on a whim?
What use is meeting the EU renewables target with nonsense figures?
I have other points, but don't want to seem like a tool.

Djpbarry;

I should have made it clearer, it's the percentage at all of the time-points, averaged.
*Anyone trying to replicate my figure should note that there's an hour of missing data around line 8,300 that may upset formulae.

dynamick

ffitzer wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't keep up with these developments since every time I look at these numbers it makes me want to tear my hair out.

What annoys you about the numbers?

Does Ireland have these modern gas turbines that can stop and start on a whim?

It does and it added three new gas power stations (Aghada, Whitegate & Edenderry) in the past year for a total capacity of about a gigawatt (the total quantity of installed wind power is less than 1.4 gigawatts)

What use is meeting the EU renewables target with nonsense figures?

How are the figures nonsense? The EU target is not an aspiration but a legally binding obligation. If you read the directive (2009/28/EC) it specifies exactly how to measure the proportion of renewables used in electricity production, as you would expect to see in any legal document. For example, electricity gained from pumped hydro is not counted as contributing to the target if renewable energy was used to pump the water in the first place.

Chloe Pink

ffitzer wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't keep up with these developments since every time I look at these numbers it makes me want to tear my hair out.

Ffitzer, I'm glad you've raised the issue of the figures used to measure 'renewables'.
Looking again at http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Stat...2010update.pdf
starting from page 7:

"Ireland’s overall energy supply is discussed in terms of changes to the total primary energy requirement (TPER), defined as
the total amount of energy used within Ireland in any given year. This includes the energy requirements for the conversion of
primary sources of energy into forms that are useful for the final consumer, for example electricity generation and oil refining."
Wind had a 1.3% share of TPER in 2008 and the report states,
"The provisional 2009 data puts the renewable contribution to TPER at 4.4%."
This is calculating TPER using the "PE", Primary Energy approach.

Looking at renewable energy overall, the report says
"Renewable energy accounted for 3.6% of TPER in 2008"
"Using the PEE approach it can be seen that the contribution to TPER is 6.1%"
The "PEE" approach is the Primary Energy Equivalent.

No figure is specified for TFC, Total Final Consumption, for renewables but the graph shows renewables as well under 5%.

GFC, Gross Final Consumption for renewables is reported as 3.9% in 2008 and "Provisional 2009 data puts the renewable energy contribution at 4.7%."

So nowhere near 12%. However I think this is because the 12% refers to electricity whereas the figures above refer to electricity, heating and transport combined.
However "it is important to highlight that electricity is the smallest energy market (19% of gross final consumption in 2008)."

Any other views on the jist of this report.