Renewable Energy/Capital Spending

Dannyboy83

I'm not very clued up on Renewable Energy in general, not to mention it's progress in Ireland but I was reading the following report which argues that "Ireland's GDP could fall by as much as 7.5% if the world was to experience a sudden oil or gas price rise, according to a report launched by Siemens."

http://www.siemens.ie/content/news/pressreleases/2010/press-release-oilgas_report.asp
As a small open economy heavily dependent on world demand for Irish exports, any major shock to the global economy would significantly impact on Ireland.
Additionally, Ireland’s high dependency on imported fossil fuels would also further exacerbate the effects of any shock – with ramifications for business and society through higher electricity, transport and heating costs, increased levels of “fuel poverty” and a loss of competitiveness.
...
The price scenarios were then evaluated in cooperation with the ESRI against a baseline scenario to offer a detailed analysis of the impact of each on GDP, inflation, interest rates and wage rates internationally and for Ireland, resulting in GDP drops of between 3.5% - 7.5%.

And while not ignoring the bigger picture, we are seeing the impact which excessive taxation on fuel is causing to our economy at the moment:

Finance Minister Michael Noonan said today there are indications that economic growth this year will be weaker than the Government had expected.

He said that Budget predictions of 1.3% growth in 2012 were in line with the consensus at the time, but the indications now are that growth will be weaker.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/finance-minister-warns-of-weaker-growth-than-forecast-549006.html#ixzz1uNMVfDTi

I'm assuming given that our capital spending is being slashed to pieces, we simply don't and won't have the money to invest in renewable energy for quite some time.

And the tickbox coalition are not going to reduce taxation on fuel, regardless of it's effects on GDP/cost cutting/inflation/competitiveness, because it's politically the least difficult way of getting the money.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cut-in-motor-fuel-prices-economic-dreamland-says-noonan-3090406.html
FINANCE Minister Michael Noonan has accused Fianna Fail of living in "economic dreamland" for proposing a cut in fuel prices.
He said the Government has to stick to its budgetary commitments..
..
A litre of petrol currently costs around €1.65 and diesel around €1.56. Mr Dooley said this represents a 75pc hike in forecourt prices from 2009.

.
.
.
.

So we seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
No money for Capital Spending and a huge amount of money is being sucked up by budgetary commitments due to political spinelessness.

So, other than looking the other way and 'crossing that bridge when we come to it', what other options do we have?

Ask Siemens to construct the renewable energy system for us and lease it back from them, similar to what the NRA do?
What kind of money would that require and is it financially feasible?

The_Honeybadger

It is certainly feasible to get siemens or Johnson controls to install technology and pay it off over time with the savings, indeed they specialise in this business model and it appears to be a win win in many ways. Doing it on our own is impossible at the moment so unless private capital comes in to play we are very much between a rock and a hard place as you have stated.

Delancey

Before any large-scale capital projects are undertaken I think we need a proper and open debate about our future energy needs.
Seems to be a lot of mis-information out there and I hold the Green or Nuclear Power - Nein Danke lobby responsible.
Outlandish claims are being made as to the benefits of wind turbines for instance and precious little about their severe limitations and drawbacks.

Some economists have warned the next bubble could be a ' green ' one.

The knee-jerk anti-nuclear stance is a pity and we may live to regret not going nuclear years ago.

The_Honeybadger

Delancey wrote: »

Before any large-scale capital projects are undertaken I think we need a proper and open debate about our future energy needs.
Seems to be a lot of mis-information out there and I hold the Green or Nuclear Power - Nein Danke lobby responsible.
Outlandish claims are being made as to the benefits of wind turbines for instance and precious little about their severe limitations and drawbacks.

Some economists have warned the next bubble could be a ' green ' one.

The knee-jerk anti-nuclear stance is a pity and we may live to regret not going nuclear years ago.

Our current grid is incapable of handling nuclear without absolutely jaw dropping amounts of investment, and yes wind has major drawback and will plateau shortly. First thing we need to focus on is getting consumption down as much as possible. We don't really have the money for anything else anyway. Where would we find the money to build a nuclear power station for example?

djpbarry

Delancey wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of mis-information out there and I hold the Green or Nuclear Power - Nein Danke lobby responsible.
Outlandish claims are being made as to the benefits of wind turbines for instance and precious little about their severe limitations and drawbacks.

Outlandish claims have been made by extremists about just about every form of power generation. Nuclear is consistently dismissed as being unsafe, while I’ve seen all kinds of ridiculous claims made against wind (and other renewables) – people will literally trawl the internet looking for absolutely any argument against building more wind turbines and then post it in the S&EI forum. Case in point.

Personally, I have few safety concerns with regard to nuclear, but I’ve never been convinced by the economic argument. Apart from the fact that the capital investment involved in going nuclear is colossal, there are a whole load of uncertainties associated with the lifetime cost of nuclear operations. For example, how much will it cost to process and store the waste associated with a nuclear plant? That’s a very difficult question to answer, because nobody knows how long the waste will need to be stored for. Hence, taxpayers usually pick up the tab for waste storage. Furthermore, if the number of nuclear reactors in the world increases dramatically, so does the demand for uranium – as the high-grade, easily-extractable supplies are diminished, the cost associated with extracting lower-grade ores spirals. It also needs to be remembered that refining uranium is an extremely energy-intensive process, an environmental impact that is frequently over-looked.

My position on wind is that it can continue to make a substantial contribution to electricity generation, especially in a windy location like Ireland, and it makes sense to exploit this as fully as possible. Wind generation is really cheap and virtually all the life-time costs are known up front, so it’s a pretty safe investment. However, the impact wind (and other weather-based renewables) can have is obviously limited by our relative inability to store energy efficiently at present.

antoobrien

There's also a lively long running debate on nuclear in the infrastructure forum.

Personally I don't mind nuclear and would not object to one being built near my home.

Some of the renewables on the other hand are currently more than a bit suspect. During the big freeze we had practically no wind generation (at a time when it should be high) for a period of several days, at a time when energy demand is at its highest. This would sorely test the storage capacity of say spirit of Ireland.

The questions I'd have are:
are they reliable enough in terms of output (wind, wave)
are the safe enough (nuclear, hydro)
do we have the correct geology to use renewables correctly (e.g. thermal springs, high areas for pumped storage etc)
what weather/climate conditions are required
what will we have to use as backup to provide baseload

paddy0090

FYI What siemens is doing there is called market seeding. You don't talk about your tech you talk about the market; costs/benefits and the direction that the tech is moving. It's a reliable piece of marketing

I don't put much faith in wind, and I think Nuclear is too expensive. We to change fracking direction.

Delancey

It is true that the decommissioning costs of Nuclear stations are huge and indeed when the UK privatised electricity generation they could find nobody to take on the nuclear component for that very reason.

I would prefer Nuclear power to the idea of being held to ransom by unstable tyrant-led regimes from the Middle-East or being at the mercy of the Russians who are not slow to turn off the gas taps to further their political aims.

But this is Ireland and no matter what the benefits of Nuclear are the hysterical knee-jerk reaction will always win out :mad:

djpbarry

antoobrien wrote: »

Some of the renewables on the other hand are currently more than a bit suspect. During the big freeze we had practically no wind generation (at a time when it should be high) for a period of several days, at a time when energy demand is at its highest.

Why is that an argument against using wind? It’s an argument against using wind as baseload, but it’s not an argument against using it altogether. If the wind blows, use it. If it doesn’t, use something else. We’re not going to have a silver bullet that will meet all energy needs all the time any time soon.

djpbarry

Delancey wrote: »

I would prefer Nuclear power to the idea of being held to ransom by unstable tyrant-led regimes from the Middle-East or being at the mercy of the Russians who are not slow to turn off the gas taps to further their political aims.

I agree with regard to oil, but Ireland’s love affair with the car will ensure that demand remains high for the foreseeable future. As for gas, I think the threat of Russia turning off the taps is grossly over-stated: Russia needs Europe’s cash far more than Europe needs Russia’s gas. And of course gas generation is cleaner, more efficient and more flexible than oil-based and methane is semi-renewable.

Delancey

djpbarry wrote: »

Why is that an argument against using wind? It’s an argument against using wind as baseload, but it’s not an argument against using it altogether. If the wind blows, use it. If it doesn’t, use something else. We’re not going to have a silver bullet that will meet all energy needs all the time any time soon.

That suggests having 2 completely different sets of infrastructure - when the wind blows use one and when we're becalmed use the other - not very efficient.
However you do recognise the limitations of wind which is more than can be said for lot of people who seem brainwashed into going along with the herd instinct that says '' if its green then it has to be good ''.

Godge

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm not very clued up on Renewable Energy in general, not to mention it's progress in Ireland but I was reading the following report which argues that "Ireland's GDP could fall by as much as 7.5% if the world was to experience a sudden oil or gas price rise, according to a report launched by Siemens."




And while not ignoring the bigger picture, we are seeing the impact which excessive taxation on fuel is causing to our economy at the moment:


I'm assuming given that our capital spending is being slashed to pieces, we simply don't and won't have the money to invest in renewable energy for quite some time.

And the tickbox coalition are not going to reduce taxation on fuel, regardless of it's effects on GDP/cost cutting/inflation/competitiveness, because it's politically the least difficult way of getting the money.

.
.
.
.

So we seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
No money for Capital Spending and a huge amount of money is being sucked up by budgetary commitments due to political spinelessness.

So, other than looking the other way and 'crossing that bridge when we come to it', what other options do we have?

Ask Siemens to construct the renewable energy system for us and lease it back from them, similar to what the NRA do?
What kind of money would that require and is it financially feasible?

Not sure what argument you are trying to make linking renewable energy to lower taxes on fuel???

Think of it this way, the country has no money, raising taxes on oil has a double effect, it closes part of the fiscal gap and makes renewable energy more attractive as a result. It also has the effect you mention of dampening economic growth.

The question for economists (of which I am not) is whether a longer-term first mover advantage of a shift to renweable energy and a shorter-term rise in revenue due to increased taxes on fuel are worth the effort when faced with the disadvantage of a short-to-medium term dampener on economic growth because of the cost of fuel.

djpbarry

Delancey wrote: »

That suggests having 2 completely different sets of infrastructure - when the wind blows use one and when we're becalmed use the other...

No, not really. It means we have what we currently have - variable base-load, the output from which gets reduced when the wind blows. So what we want is flexible base-load (that can be ramped up/down quickly as needed). Gas is flexible. Nuclear is not.

antoobrien

djpbarry wrote: »

Why is that an argument against using wind? It’s an argument against using wind as baseload, but it’s not an argument against using it altogether. If the wind blows, use it. If it doesn’t, use something else. We’re not going to have a silver bullet that will meet all energy needs all the time any time soon.

That bit in bold is the problem in a nutshell. The something else needs to be hot swappable, especially at times of peak load. The sheer unreliability of wind makes it suspect for even being used as a "topup" source of power (even combined with something like SoI).

djpbarry wrote: »

I agree with regard to oil, but Ireland’s love affair with the car will ensure that demand remains high for the foreseeable future.

Not true - petrol & diesel fuel accounts for less than 1/3 the total oil usage in Ireland (based on 2010 excise figures of liters sold). The rest is used for chemical and heating processes.