Wind-pumped hydro electric storage

Markcheese

djpbarry wrote: »

Oldtree wrote: »

Yes as the infastructure needed for wind farms all over the place is massive.

Pollution attributable to turbine manufacture and the building of infrastructure need to be factored into all forms of power generation in order to allow an objective comparison. I'm really not at all convinced that the environmental impact of construction is considerably higher in the case of wind power, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Besides, in the case of wind, any such costs would have to be weighted against the environmental impacts of fuel refinery needed for other forms of power generation.

Oldtree wrote: »

It is not, but it is a point ignored by the wind pushers.

The fact that turbines have a finite lifespan is being ignored by "wind pushers"? Really? Who has argued that wind farms, once built, can go on producing power indefinitely?

Oldtree wrote: »

The cost of wind power vs the cost of another power source and the attitudes towards that other power source seems to me to be a reasonable part of this discussion and that other power source has been referred to in previous posts.

Well, my attitude towards nuclear power is that I'm not at all convinced it's economical, either in the UK or Ireland. But let's not turn this into a discussion on nuclear power please.

Interesting that u should be turning the thread from nuclear when
A : Nuclear is prob suited brilliantly to pumped storage... Very steady production, fuel cost relatively low, not suited to peaks and troughs unlike pumped storage...
B: Britain and France signed an agreement today to chase headlong down the new nuclear route( prob regardless of cost).Rolls Royce are spending 650 million sterling on a factory in uk to make French designed reactor components in UK. They ain't doing that on a whim.

Capt'n Midnight

Oldtree wrote: »

With regard to biomass and wind and solar all over the place I would refer you to the previous posting pointing to a new scientist article that suggested there is a limit to wind and solar power that can be generated before the major winds and reflected sunlight would be impacted on and effect the climates worldwide.

That mostly referred to high altitude jet streams not having as much energy as some thought, not really a suprise when you realise that the highest wind speeds in the solar system occur in a low energy region.

Neptune 2,100 Km/hr at -218C ( you can imagine the wind chill :P )

But Ireland is downwind of several thousand Km of ocean where wind is made, so we are good to go.


When you can prove that wind adversely affects global (not local) climate more than the carbon dioxide it replaces you might have a point, maybe

Oldtree

As an example of the language used that i find unreasonable:

"emissions free energy"

See spirit of ireland:

http://www.spiritofireland.org/solution.php

So if the Uk and France rush headlong down that unmentionable route, what impact will that have on electicity prices via the interconnectors to us. QED we get more unmentionable power down the interconnectors. What impact is that going to have on wind produced energy prices here let alone the impact on the possibility of investors making investment in wind energy.

I am just as keen as you to see Ireland self sufficient in power production just as i would like to see Ireland self sufficient in food production. We import 90% of our food yet 10 million people lived here not so long ago.

I think that possibilities for each household exist for us to as least offset some if not all of out energy requirements. Reduction of power use where possible, timing of power use, insulation is very high on the agenda. I am also keen on stoves in every home to burn wood from home grown forests.

What if small turbines like those allowed without planning permission were silent and were attached to most buildings or in gardens, business parks, airports and industrial areas, with an appropiate tax offset over 5-7 years (in that it would be considered a business investment rather than private use) and the esb allowed import export meters and a straight writeoff of units produced to units used. The esb would then have massive amounts of green energy to sell off (on paper) to europe. There would then be a genuine insentive for people to become involved in wind power and could reduce the overall cost of wind power, the actual cost turbine cost and the costs on the environment. each house already has a transformer nearby. It seems credable to me.

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

So if the Uk and France rush headlong down that unmentionable route, what impact will that have on electicity prices via the interconnectors to us. QED we get more unmentionable power down the interconnectors.

I'd find it a whole lot easier to engage with you if you stopped assuming everyone to be anti-nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight

Oldtree wrote: »

What if small turbines like those allowed without planning permission were silent and were attached to most buildings or in gardens, business parks, airports and industrial areas, with an appropiate tax offset over 5-7 years (in that it would be considered a business investment rather than private use) and the esb allowed import export meters and a straight writeoff of units produced to units used. The esb would then have massive amounts of green energy to sell off (on paper) to europe. There would then be a genuine insentive for people to become involved in wind power and could reduce the overall cost of wind power, the actual cost turbine cost and the costs on the environment. each house already has a transformer nearby. It seems credable to me.

IF they could be made silent. Current regs allow turbines without pp if you have a large enough back garden

Remember Mao and having each village have it's own backyard furnace ?
turns out 600,000 such furnaces will produce 11 million tons of pig iorn a year
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/great_leap_forward.htm (that's 600,000 thousand villages looking for firewood the environmental impact was starggering and the iron nearly worthless compared to the effort)

ONE industrial scale furnace will produce 4.38 million tons a year http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/presse/art_detail.html&eid=TKBase_1328095396431_284885812


There are economies of scale. It's windier when you go higher, 70m up you get more watts than at ground level. There are also control systems, transformers, meters which would have to be replicated in each premises. A 3m turbine mounted on the side of a building in an urban area can't compete with the efficiency of a 30m turbine on top of a mountain (ever been to "windy gap" clue is in the name) or offshore.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IF they could be made silent. Current regs allow turbines without pp if you have a large enough back garden

Remember Mao and having each village have it's own backyard furnace ?
turns out 600,000 such furnaces will produce 11 million tons of pig iorn a year
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/great_leap_forward.htm (that's 600,000 thousand villages looking for firewood the environmental impact was starggering and the iron nearly worthless compared to the effort)

ONE industrial scale furnace will produce 4.38 million tons a year http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/presse/art_detail.html&eid=TKBase_1328095396431_284885812


There are economies of scale. It's windier when you go higher, 70m up you get more watts than at ground level. There are also control systems, transformers, meters which would have to be replicated in each premises. A 3m turbine mounted on the side of a building in an urban area can't compete with the efficiency of a 30m turbine on top of a mountain (ever been to "windy gap" clue is in the name) or offshore.

It was this line of thinking that persuaded me to give up on the idea of buying a personal wind turbine, it would never pay back the cost. Now a home made one out of free junk, now that's still worthwhile.

Markcheese

Back to the "fear" of getting nuclear energy down our shiny new interconnectors,nuclear reactors are great (but maybe expensive for) providing base line power not great for the peaks,so the uk and France would have loads of power to export at night when we don't need it and sod all spare during the day. Plus with the staggeringly long lead in and eye watering price they're not going to build many"extra" to help out little old us...

Markcheese

Mind u if someone built huge interconnectors, spirit of Ireland could prob get almost free night time nuclear power from uk nuclear and sell it back as expensive peak time power when the kettles go on during corrie
Could turn a tidy profit for mere tens of billions..;(..and hang the environmentalists ...."-"

Macha

Markcheese wrote: »

(..and hang the environmentalists ...."-"

[mod]In an environmentalism forum? Please.[/mod]

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Mind u if someone built huge interconnectors, spirit of Ireland could prob get almost free night time nuclear power from uk nuclear and sell it back as expensive peak time power when the kettles go on during corrie
Could turn a tidy profit for mere tens of billions..;(..and hang the environmentalists ...."-"

Why would they do that when it would be cheaper to build the Severn Barrage and other similar schemes ?

Interconnectors form Scotland to Norway are another option for the UK that could prove cheaper for them than Spirit Of Ireland.


Airtiricity were to build interconnected windfarms from the English Channel to the Baltic too..

Oldtree

djpbarry wrote: »

I'd find it a whole lot easier to engage with you if you stopped assuming everyone to be anti-nuclear.

I amnt assuming anything, as I mentioned above I havnt yet arrived at a conclusion for myself. I was just pointing to the fact that it is impossible to pinpoint the source of the electricity coming down the interconnector and have to accept the fact that we are all using nuclear generated power in our homes at the moment and will use more in the future and it is unavoidable. this could be rationally used as part of an argument for us establishing our own nuclear plants. Dare I say nimby.

Oldtree

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IF they could be made silent. Current regs allow turbines without pp if you have a large enough back garden

There are economies of scale. It's windier when you go higher, 70m up you get more watts than at ground level. There are also control systems, transformers, meters which would have to be replicated in each premises. A 3m turbine mounted on the side of a building in an urban area can't compete with the efficiency of a 30m turbine on top of a mountain (ever been to "windy gap" clue is in the name) or offshore.

I was trying to put forward an idea to make each household as carbon neutral as possible. that a lot of households could derive their power needs from less polluting sources. I hope for a silent turbine that will not annoy the neighbours. As well as increasing the value of our forests with a major new output avenue.

The current fuel mix for power in my home is:

http://www.esb.ie/esbcustomersupply/residential/manage-your-account/fuel-mix.jsp

so my last bill for around 1000 kw caused 532kg of CO2 emissions.

and I would seek to improve that. If everybody did their bit then the impact would be huge. Scale dosnt matter if there are millions of small contributers.

No matter what your/my standpoint on global warming etc, emmitting less pollution into the air we breathe has to be a positive thing.

Capt'n Midnight

Oldtree wrote: »

f everybody did their bit then the impact would be huge. Scale dosnt matter if there are millions of small contributers.

No matter what your/my standpoint on global warming etc, emmitting less pollution into the air we breathe has to be a positive thing.

Please note my post about 600,000 Village backyard furnaces.

Each furnace used locally sourced fuel and local labour, but there was also labour and coal imported such there was a shortage of coal for the railways and production on farms dropped. There were other factors involved, but these furnaces were a contributory factor to the famines that killed tens of millions of people. The iron produced was next to useless for tool making with without further processing.

And all to replace 3 industrial sized furnaces that produced better quality iron as part of the steel making process.

For the average householder the better investment would be in insulation / heat pumps / purchase of more energy efficient devices. It's supply vs. demand. Reducing demand is the more effective for the householder.

(solar heating though is worth considering.)


Buying micro wind turbines at current prices is crazy, unless you can save on the grid connection costs. Making one from scrap is of course a zero cost option so worth considering.

Capt'n Midnight

Oldtree wrote: »

I was just pointing to the fact that it is impossible to pinpoint the source of the electricity coming down the interconnector and have to accept the fact that we are all using nuclear generated power in our homes at the moment and will use more in the future and it is unavoidable. this could be rationally used as part of an argument for us establishing our own nuclear plants. Dare I say nimby.

LOL

If you measure the drift velocity of electrons , none of the nuke electrons come near us


if your argument was anything other than FUD then Airtricity might as well shut up shop since their customers might get fossil fuel electricity :rolleyes:

How often do people have to point out to you that the UK nuke industry gets massive subsidies and a levy from all electricity just to break even. The economics just aren't there.

base price for electricity here is just 5c per KWhr, show me where nukes can match this ?? (And it's cold now so demand and price are above the summer valley, it's as low as 3c during winter weekends )

Look at the graph http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

Oldtree

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please note my post about 600,000 Village backyard furnaces.

Each furnace used locally sourced fuel and local labour, but there was also labour and coal imported such there was a shortage of coal for the railways and production on farms dropped. There were other factors involved, but these furnaces were a contributory factor to the famines that killed tens of millions of people. The iron produced was next to useless for tool making with without further processing.

And all to replace 3 industrial sized furnaces that produced better quality iron as part of the steel making process.

For the average householder the better investment would be in insulation / heat pumps / purchase of more energy efficient devices. It's supply vs. demand. Reducing demand is the more effective for the householder.

(solar heating though is worth considering.)


Buying micro wind turbines at current prices is crazy, unless you can save on the grid connection costs. Making one from scrap is of course a zero cost option so worth considering.

In heating terms alone a wood stove would burn say a maximum of 4 tonnes of wood to heat a well insulated house which is 4 tonnes of CO2 emitted, where as a oil burner would emit roughly 13 tonnes of CO2 to do the same job. A saving of 9 tonnes of CO2 per annum. i was talking about domestic use not industrial use and I wasnt talking about burning coal either. Solar vaccum tubes would see all the hot water needs for the other parts of the year.

And yes current prices for micro turbines are crazy which is why I suggested that the tax incentive and a quid pro quo from the ESB would help us move this issue forward.

Oldtree

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

If you measure the drift velocity of electrons , none of the nuke electrons come near us


if your argument was anything other than FUD then Airtricity might as well shut up shop since their customers might get fossil fuel electricity :rolleyes:

How often do people have to point out to you that the UK nuke industry gets massive subsidies and a levy from all electricity just to break even. The economics just aren't there.

base price for electricity here is just 5c per KWhr, show me where nukes can match this ?? (And it's cold now so demand and price are above the summer valley, it's as low as 3c during winter weekends )

Look at the graph http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

Trying to pretend that Airtricity customers use only renewable produced energy is silly just as saying the electricity that travels down the interconnector is seperated into renewable and non renewable electricity. what has economies got to do with how far electricity travels down a cable???
lolroaf

Oldtree

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For the average householder the better investment would be in insulation / heat pumps / purchase of more energy efficient devices. It's supply vs. demand. Reducing demand is the more effective for the householder.
(solar heating though is worth considering.)

Absolutly agree that your suggestions are part of the way forward, every little bit helps imo.

Markcheese

Macha wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

(..and hang the environmentalists ...."-"

[mod]In an environmentalism forum? Please.[/mod]

Humour ? (class myself as an environmentalist)(sort of)

Also the great White hope of our big alternative energy projects spirit of irl is going to have massive environmental impact (locally ) in a country where u couldn't put up a single turbine mast without a comotion

Markcheese

How often do people have to point out to you that the UK nuke industry gets massive subsidies and a levy from all electricity just to break even. The economics just aren't there.



Well I for one am not assuming that nuclear is cheap, but Britain has them, and are seriously pushing to build more... If you've already spent 12 billion or so you're gonna use the bloody thing wether the overall costs stack up or not.... If fact you'll use it to the max to try justify the stupid start up and vast fixed running costs if only to try justify the prob political (not always rational) decision to build it,,,,

Markcheese

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Mind u if someone built huge interconnectors, spirit of Ireland could prob get almost free night time nuclear power from uk nuclear and sell it back as expensive peak time power when the kettles go on during corrie
Could turn a tidy profit for mere tens of billions..;(..and hang the environmentalists ...."-"

Why would they do that when it would be cheaper to build the Severn Barrage and other similar schemes ?

Interconnectors form Scotland to Norway are another option for the UK that could prove cheaper for them than Spirit Of Ireland.


Airtiricity were to build interconnected windfarms from the English Channel to the Baltic too..

Could be right on that but... Severn scheme is very iffy on how much they reckon it'd cost, but will have a massive environmental impact on a huge area, there are questions about it's life span due to silting,
What do you do for electricity for time around full and low tide when the barrage won't be producing....?
Where would the norweigan/scotish interconnectors be sourcing their power from at peak times.....unreliable if it's wind.pointlessly expensive if it's gas or nuclear.
Of course the UK or French could build their own huge pumped storage to make their reactors more effective and efficent, that way they'd save on connectors. If they have enough appropriate sites....

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Where would the norweigan/scotish interconnectors be sourcing their power from at peak times.

Norwegian hydro perhaps ?

Severn is tidal. You can predict power output years in advance, +/- storm surge. Capital costs and economics are same order as nuclear. Environmental impact should be compared with fossil fuel it replaces. Hydro plants have very long lives compared to other generating stations. Some of the Roman dams are still in use.

Solair

I think new pumped storage infrastructure could be combined with the project to bring more reliable water supply to the Greater Dublin area.

Surely we could kill two birds with one stone and put some kind of a major reservoir system somewhere that could be used to store water abstracted from the Shannon and also have a two levels to allow pumped storage.

There's no reason why a large system could not incorporate pumped storage. You simply pump water from the lower resevoir to the upper one by wind power and at peak demand, you release it back down again. The same water, if the system is big enough, would be sufficient to keep the east coast topped up too and there would always be more water topping it up anyway most of the year as Ireland doesn't tend have long dry seasons.

During hot weather / dry weather, Irish electricity consumption also dips. We are not hot enough to require air conditioning in summer, so when heating loads drop off, the power consumption goes down on average.

So, during dry weather when more water might be required for urban water supplies, less would be required for pumped storage electrical generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill

Works pretty well and to be fair, has relatively low visual impact in Wicklow.

Markcheese

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Where would the norweigan/scotish interconnectors be sourcing their power from at peak times.

Norwegian hydro perhaps ?

Severn is tidal. You can predict power output years in advance, +/- storm surge. Capital costs and economics are same order as nuclear. Environmental impact should be compared with fossil fuel it replaces. Hydro plants have very long lives compared to other generating stations. Some of the Roman dams are still in use.

Does Norway have much spare hydro capacity.... ?
Just because u can predict massive daily power outages years in advance won't make consumers of electricity any happier when the lights go out
Some hdyro schemes are long lived and effective , some dams silt up... And a tidal barrage is prob a bit unpredictable
Kind of worrying that costs and economics are in the same order as nuclear,5 to 6 years late and many billions over, which prob means Uk gov will push and then subsidise construction:) no matter the environmental cost..
They're still pushing nuclear as well , which ties in with pumped storage as getting almost free off peak power ( call it heavily subsidised) would save a fortune by stopping a gov having to build more reactors, at 10/12 Billion a go plus interest it's Staggering

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

In heating terms alone a wood stove would burn say a maximum of 4 tonnes of wood to heat a well insulated house which is 4 tonnes of CO2 emitted, where as a oil burner would emit roughly 13 tonnes of CO2 to do the same job.

What are you basing those figures on?

Oldtree wrote: »

I was just pointing to the fact that it is impossible to pinpoint the source of the electricity coming down the interconnector and have to accept the fact that we are all using nuclear generated power in our homes at the moment and will use more in the future and it is unavoidable. this could be rationally used as part of an argument for us establishing our own nuclear plants.

I suppose it could, but it wouldn’t be a very strong argument.

djpbarry

Markcheese wrote: »

Just because u can predict massive daily power outages...

Who said anything about predicting power outages?

Markcheese

djpbarry wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Just because u can predict massive daily power outages...

Who said anything about predicting power outages?

Well.... I assume as it's a tidal barrage it won't store any water.....? And since it's tidal there'll be 4 periods of slack water every 24 hours, half an hour or so either side of each high and low tide, and while it's totally predictable it ain't going to keep the lights on, without a back up.... And .... Here we go again

Oldtree

djpbarry wrote: »

What are you basing those figures on?
I suppose it could, but it wouldn’t be a very strong argument.

Oops caught me out there. That would be and oil burner, coal fire and electric boost for hot water and heating. A while back I did a simple calculation on my parents home, which is not well insulated, of the use of fuels for heating and hot water.

1500 liters oil used @ 2.7 co2 per litre = 4.05 ton CO2
2 tonne coal used (2 fires) @ 2.9 co2 per kg = 5.8 ton CO2
electric boost in mornings for hour over 52weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Total 11.59 ton CO2

I have been told by the owner of a well insulated home, triple glazing, (without heat recovery) that his use of wood in backboiler wood stove was 4 tonnes to meet his heating and hot water needs during the winter and solar met his hot Water needs in the summer. He also said that the solar heated the water up to 15 degrees for most of the winter. He also used the electric boost the odd time but not regularly.

Coford in 2008 suggested a wood burning boiler used to heat a home of 150 m2 (1,615 square feet) will use an average of 6 tonnes of pellets per annum and two kilogrammes of wood pellets replace 1 litre of gas oil.

And yes it isnt a strong argument merely to point out that we already use imported nuclear generated power here.

My own current usage for hot water and heating in a home constructed in 2000 with 5cm insulation and ordinary double glazing is:

900 litres oil for 2011 x 2.7 = 2.43
electric boost in mornings for (probably less) hour over 52 weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Also Dimplex heaters in kids rooms to maintain warmer temp difficult to quantify
No fires
total 4.1728 ton CO2

djpbarry

Markcheese wrote: »

...since it's tidal there'll be 4 periods of slack water every 24 hours, half an hour or so either side of each high and low tide, and while it's totally predictable it ain't going to keep the lights on...

No single power source on it's own is ever going to be relied on to "keep the lights on", so it is completely beyond me why people continuously use this argument.

Markcheese

djpbarry wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

...since it's tidal there'll be 4 periods of slack water every 24 hours, half an hour or so either side of each high and low tide, and while it's totally predictable it ain't going to keep the lights on...

No single power source on it's own is ever going to be relied on to "keep the lights on", so it is completely beyond me why people continuously use this argument.

Because the main thrust of the thread is supposed to be" wind pumped hydro storage". And if u suggest tidal barrage as a cheaper alternative to interconnectors and pumped storage...and then have to build the pumped storage as well as part of the same project , then it costs more... And my point is somebody pays.....always. Doesn't matter what the combination of capital,running costs and intrest .
Or more than likely I misread yr post and have just been on a solo rant:) I do love a good rant.....

Solair

Oldtree wrote: »

Oops caught me out there. That would be and oil burner, coal fire and electric boost for hot water and heating. A while back I did a simple calculation on my parents home, which is not well insulated, of the use of fuels for heating and hot water.

1500 liters oil used @ 2.7 co2 per litre = 4.05 ton CO2
2 tonne coal used (2 fires) @ 2.9 co2 per kg = 5.8 ton CO2
electric boost in mornings for hour over 52weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Total 11.59 ton CO2

I have been told by the owner of a well insulated home, triple glazing, (without heat recovery) that his use of wood in backboiler wood stove was 4 tonnes to meet his heating and hot water needs during the winter and solar met his hot Water needs in the summer. He also said that the solar heated the water up to 15 degrees for most of the winter. He also used the electric boost the odd time but not regularly.

Coford in 2008 suggested a wood burning boiler used to heat a home of 150 m2 (1,615 square feet) will use an average of 6 tonnes of pellets per annum and two kilogrammes of wood pellets replace 1 litre of gas oil.

And yes it isnt a strong argument merely to point out that we already use imported nuclear generated power here.

My own current usage for hot water and heating in a home constructed in 2000 with 5cm insulation and ordinary double glazing is:

900 litres oil for 2011 x 2.7 = 2.43
electric boost in mornings for (probably less) hour over 52 weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Also Dimplex heaters in kids rooms to maintain warmer temp difficult to quantify
No fires
total 4.1728 ton CO2

Most Irish (and indeed British too) homes waste vast amounts of energy on heating. It's incrediable that we haven't improved standards more dramatically over the decades.

There are still houses built as late as the 1970s that have no insulation in the attic at all and very poor insulation in the walls.
There are heating systems that expend most of their energy heating the foundations, or the pavement outside where the pipes cross over from the little outdoor boiler house.

There are a lot of homes that could make seriously huge financial savings with even relatively minor upgrades. Even really simple things like lagging heating pipes and putting in loft insulation, limiting heat loss from old boiler-house based boilers etc

You'd really have to wonder what it is about these two countries that we are so lax about such things. I suppose, the fact that in general, our climate's more slightly uncomfortably cold and damp than genuinely cold has a lot to do with it.

However, I think there are a lot of older people here who just seem to put up with places being cold and damp as if it were normal. It's the same in England too, there are loads of houses with absolutely inadquate heating and insulation.

France isn't much better either! I've stayed in houses over there that had as much insulation as a garden shed.

From a CO2 point of view, spending a few billion on upgrading homes' insulation and heating systems might be more long-term cost-effective in many countries than spending those billions on new CO2-neutral generation capacity, particularly nuclear.