Government Strategy for Renewable Energy 2012 - 2020

BluntGuy

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/C0498ADB-362B-449C-B381-0099B552EBD1/0/RenewableEnergyStrategy2012_2020.pdf

Haven't had the time to have a thorough look through it, I wonder if there's anything in it however that gives weight to this proposal:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0528/breaking35.html

Minister for Energy Pat Rabbitte, will begin talks with his opposite number in the UK government next month on a deal that will open up the market for large-scale electricity exports to Britain.

Mr Rabbitte launched the Government’s renewable energy strategy today and confirmed that the Republic’s long-standing target of meeting 40 per cent of its electricity needs from green energy will be met.

pljudge321

In the medium- to longer-term, the minister said that the Republic could ultimately export as between 6,000 mega watts and 7,000 mega watts to Britain, as much electricity as is consumed every year in the Republic itself.

I lolled at this part pretty hard. I hope Rabbite didn't actually say this.

OssianSmyth

pljudge321 wrote: »

I lolled at this part pretty hard. I hope Rabbite didn't actually say this.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much what he said in the official press release:

Rabbitte wrote:

We use 6 to 7 Gigawatts ourselves each year and I believe we could be exporting the same quantum to the UK and beyond in the coming years.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/2012/Launch+of+Renewable+Energy+Strategy.htm

There are no measurable targets in the new strategy, just some vague aspirations. No mention of a REFIT for offshore wind, no mention of solar water heating or any domestic renewables. Nothing specific at all.

All the actions seem to start with "Liaise with...", "Review...", "Work with our partners..."

No deadlines, no concrete tasks.

pljudge321

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's pretty much what he said in the official press release:

Ugh. Say what you will about Eamonn Ryan but at least he knew what a megawatt and a megawatt-hour were.

maddragon

I've said this before. The 40% target is entirely aspirational and the only way it will possibly be achieved is if there is a fossil fuel shortage and a good number of our power stations have no fuel by 2020 due to peak oil.

pljudge321

maddragon wrote: »

I've said this before. The 40% target is entirely aspirational and the only way it will possibly be achieved is if there is a fossil fuel shortage and a good number of our power stations have no fuel by 2020 due to peak oil.

We're pretty on track for it, we hit 16% last year.

Also barely any of our stations run on oil, and the ones that do are low merit order and so are barely ever used.

maddragon

16 to 40% in 8 years is a huge ask especially if the demand is expanding. Also peak oil will coincide closely with peak gas and I don't see fracking making up the difference. I hope I'm wrong:

pljudge321

maddragon wrote: »

16 to 40% in 8 years is a huge ask especially if the demand is expanding. Also peak oil will coincide closely with peak gas and I don't see fracking making up the difference. I hope I'm wrong:

3% growth per year isn't that mad, it went from 12% in 2010 to 16% in 2011.
Demand isn't expanding all that much, the recession saw to that.

Heroditas

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's pretty much what he said in the official press release:

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/2012/Launch+of+Renewable+Energy+Strategy.htm

It should be unforgivable that a minister would say something like that.
What's even worse is the fact that it got through his advisers and speech writers.
Very sloppy.

bk

maddragon wrote: »

16 to 40% in 8 years is a huge ask especially if the demand is expanding. Also peak oil will coincide closely with peak gas and I don't see fracking making up the difference. I hope I'm wrong:

The reality is we are going to end up burning lots and lots of coal :mad:

Coal is cheap and VERY plentiful. As other fossil fuels run out, we will unfortunately looking increasingly to coal.

That is because we unfortunately have a stupid aversion to much cleaner Nuclear power. Ironically we will probably end up importing a great deal of nuclear generated power from the UK :eek:

OssianSmyth

Looking at the SEAI's energy projections for 2020, they include predictions for the quantity of electricity imported/exported by 2020 under various scenarios.

Under the do-nothing scenario we have to import by 2020. If we do all the things in the latest Energy Efficiency Plan we sent to the EU (including building the projects under Transport 21) then we'll export 1.2TWh by 2020

If we follow the 'exploratory potential scenario', then we might export 8/9 TWh per year but we would need to
*build another interconnector to the UK
*deploy 500MW of wave power and a simiilar of biomass electricity
*build 5.7GW of wind

So the department's plans for export seem based on the optimistic scenario, yet the government has already cancelled all the major public transport projects required for the current scenario.

SeanW

bk wrote: »

The reality is we are going to end up burning lots and lots of coal :mad:

Coal is cheap and VERY plentiful. As other fossil fuels run out, we will unfortunately looking increasingly to coal.

That is because we unfortunately have a stupid aversion to much cleaner Nuclear power. Ironically we will probably end up importing a great deal of nuclear generated power from the UK :eek:

QFT!!!

Joko

That press release is a focking joke. By 2020 a large proportion of the installed wind turbines will have to be replaced. They have an engineering design life of 20 years. Wind power will never work, it will always be a future statistic. Stick with gas, there is more than enough for 100s years.

Joko

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Looking at the SEAI's energy projections for 2020, they include predictions for the quantity of electricity imported/exported by 2020 under various scenarios.

Under the do-nothing scenario we have to import by 2020. If we do all the things in the latest Energy Efficiency Plan we sent to the EU (including building the projects under Transport 21) then we'll export 1.2TWh by 2020

If we follow the 'exploratory potential scenario', then we might export 8/9 TWh per year but we would need to
*build another interconnector to the UK
*deploy 500MW of wave power and a simiilar of biomass electricity
*build 5.7GW of wind

So the department's plans for export seem based on the optimistic scenario, yet the government has already cancelled all the major public transport projects required for the current scenario.

Ah Jaysus, Wave Power. LOL. There will never be a commercial operational wave power project. Nevermind 500MW.

dowlingm

pljudge321 wrote: »

3% growth per year isn't that mad, it went from 12% in 2010 to 16% in 2011.
Demand isn't expanding all that much, the recession saw to that.

It's not just about installed capacity though - it has to be usable capacity both where and when needed. Easy to do in small amounts but lots of places are finding it challenging to get renewables to the point where they are significant contributors let alone near-majority production.

pljudge321

dowlingm wrote: »

It's not just about installed capacity though - it has to be usable capacity both where and when needed. Easy to do in small amounts but lots of places are finding it challenging to get renewables to the point where they are significant contributors let alone near-majority production.

Those percentage figures are for total energy production, not installed capacity.

Packet

Joko wrote: »

By 2020 a large proportion of the installed wind turbines will have to be replaced. They have an engineering design life of 20 years. Wind power will never work, it will always be a future statistic. Stick with gas, there is more than enough for 100s years.

Wind is already working and is a present day statistic. The oldest commercial wind plants in the world are over 30 years old. If anything the 20 year lifespan is an underestimate. Even the IAE acknowledges that the world is moving into the age of renewables. Our energy policy needs to be centred on the transition to them rather than on a high risk strategy of sticking with fossil fuels.

BluntGuy

Joko wrote: »

Stick with gas, there is more than enough for 100s years.

Is there really now?

And even if we accept this, what of climate change?

Having read through the document it was disappointingly short, vague and non-committal. The REFIT 2 and 3 programs were already known about. They have stated most of this stuff before.

Joko

Packet wrote: »

Wind is already working and is a present day statistic. The oldest commercial wind plants in the world are over 30 years old. If anything the 20 year lifespan is an underestimate. Even the IAE acknowledges that the world is moving into the age of renewables. Our energy policy needs to be centred on the transition to them rather than on a high risk strategy of sticking with fossil fuels.

They have to be replaced after 20 years. No one is going to work or insure a potential explosive wind turbine. Take away subsidies and I doubt wind ever repays its initial investment.

Packet

Joko wrote: »

They have to be replaced after 20 years. No one is going to work or insure a potential explosive wind turbine. Take away subsidies and I doubt wind ever repays its initial investment.

Where are you getting this stock denier propaganda from? Bill O'Reilly of the "well explain the tides to me" school of thought at Fox?

Ireland has relatively little fossil fuel resources and fortunately we avoided the mistake of nuclear.

Being an on-line champion for legacy power special interests is incongruous with the country's economic interests.

SeanW

Packet wrote: »

Wind is already working and is a present day statistic. The oldest commercial wind plants in the world are over 30 years old. If anything the 20 year lifespan is an underestimate. Even the IAE acknowledges that the world is moving into the age of renewables. Our energy policy needs to be centred on the transition to them rather than on a high risk strategy of sticking with fossil fuels.

This is some kind of joke right? I'm sure as an advocate of renewable energy, you realise that wind power only works when the wind is blowing between certain speeds, too slow, no power, too fast, turbine has to have the brakes put on. So far, the number of conventional power stations that have been shut down because as a result of being replaced by wind turbines is in the region of 0.

Ireland has relatively little fossil fuel resources and fortunately we avoided the mistake of nuclear.

Mistake of nuclear? All we've had since the days of Carnsore Point is absolute dependence on filthy fossil fuels and industrial-scale bog cutting. I'm sure the enviornmental-left was spouting the same "windmills uber alles" bunkum then as it is today, and it's no more true today than it was all those years ago.

Being an on-line champion for legacy power special interests is incongruous with the country's economic interests.

Neither is advocating a massive waste of resources on unstable, expensive and environmentally damaging weather based "renewable" energy.

ch750536

Anyone have an idea how I can fight planning permission for a new farm next to me? I already can see 57 from by kitchen window, add another 28 from the front room and another farm is too much.
I couldn't see anywhere relevant in the forum list so sorry if this is in the wrong place.

SeanW

There was a case posted in Environmental Issues where a resident was able to scupper the planning permission of wind turbines because the impact on the extensive local bat population had not been properly studied or considered

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056618619

Likely to the dismay of the eco-whacko Left that normally populates that board.

One of the many disadvantages of wind turbines is that they're lethal to any bat that gets close, they screw up the air pressure in the immediate vicinity so when a bat gets anywhere near a wind turbine **KAPOW** its lungs explode due to barotrauma. On that basis a residents group in rural Co. Cork objected to a large wind turbines development, first to the County Council and then to An Bord Planeala, and got it struck out!

Aidan1

Leaving aside the fact that your 'little bats go boom!" story was debunked in the same thread, you're also slightly off base with the story on the wind farm in Co Cork. Question, was the windfarm 'struck out' (really? out of what court?) because of an incomplete EIS/EIA, or because of a verified threat to the local bat population? Because in your own post you go from 'not properly studied' to the lethality issue being the cause of the failure to obtain planning permission. But if it wasn't properly studied, how did they know?

So far, the number of conventional power stations that have been shut down because as a result of being replaced by wind turbines is in the region of 0.

Possibly. Then again, you are completely missing the point that has been made to you ad nauseum before, the 1,900MW of installed renewables capacity displaces conventional generation, if not conventional plant. About 15% of our electricity generation will come from wind this year (probably more) - that's a lot of coal or gas /not burned/ (thus reducing imports, helping balance of trade)- and it's extremely helpful in keeping our electricity prices down (helping to keep inflation in check). You have a hard on for nuclear, fine, nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to be anti wind. In fact, they two would work well together - baseload nuclear (1-1.4GW in our system - replacing Moneypoint), about 4GW of wind generation, and a load of gas CCGT/OCGT for midmerit/peaking. Wind will never do baseload, and only the very weak of wind would insist that it will. But it already has a perfectly viable (from both an engineering and economic) role in power gen already.

Sponge Bob

SeanW wrote: »

There was a case posted in Environmental Issues where a resident was able to scupper the planning permission of wind turbines because the impact on the extensive local bat population had not been properly studied or considered

We have a lot of rare bats in some parts meaning a survey is de riguer.

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056618619

Likely to the dismay of the eco-whacko Left that normally populates that board.

Pack of them lads are sock puppeting me in the irish economy forum these days . The infection is spreading.

Heroditas

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Pack of them lads are sock puppeting me in the irish economy forum these days . The infection is spreading.

I thought recessions were supposed to kill the majority of those off.
We must have some MRSA-style ones here.

Sponge Bob

Eamonn Ryans social media strategy....annoy boards users

tharlear

I read about radar being used to deter bats from flying near turbine a couple of years ago

http://http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2872-using-radar-to-protect-bats-from-wind-turbines

SeanW

Aidan1 wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that your 'little bats go boom!" story was debunked in the same thread,

I wouldn't exactly call it "debunking" the facts of barotrauma were never seriously challenged, but there was a lot of accusation throwing about "anti-wind bias".

you're also slightly off base with the story on the wind farm in Co Cork. Question, was the windfarm 'struck out' (really? out of what court?) because of an incomplete EIS/EIA, or because of a verified threat to the local bat population?

An Bord Pleanala. Now, perhaps "thrown out" would have been a better term, but if all you can do is play word games, that speaks voulmes about the strength of your argument.

Because in your own post you go from 'not properly studied' to the lethality issue being the cause of the failure to obtain planning permission. But if it wasn't properly studied, how did they know?

Read the materials that were posted, there was a large multi-species bat roost within 160 metres of the proposed turbine.

and it's extremely helpful in keeping our electricity prices down (helping to keep inflation in check).

Wind farms are subsidised by electricity bill payers by means of a P.S.O levy (public service obligation). In Germany, they've already spent tens if not hundreds of billions subsidising solar panels.

You have a hard on for nuclear, fine, nothing wrong with that in and of itself

If I were a member of Greenpeace or any of the world Green parties, being publically pro-nuclear would be heresy. It would be taken as the equivalent of yelling "Heil Hitler" in a synagogue or spray painting an upside down 5 point star on a church altar.

but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to be anti wind. In fact, they two would work well together - baseload nuclear (1-1.4GW in our system - replacing Moneypoint), about 4GW of wind generation, and a load of gas CCGT/OCGT for midmerit/peaking.

That would be quite reasonable, the problem is no mainstream environmentalist will ever admit that this might be a good idea. Assuming you frequent the Environmental Issues board, you might have noticed that every time I point out that there's a choice to be made between fossil fuels and nuclear power (with renewables at best being an independent question) I get ignored, or someone spends 5 pages posting rubbish like Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, in one case.

That's because they don't like to talk about how the poster boy for anti-nuclear, pro-renewable claptrap, Germany, has been on a coal plant building spree since 2007, and now - post Fukushima - looking at deals with Gazprom for gas.

That is why I object so strongly to renewables being promoted as an "alternative," which is what most of the Environmental-left do as a matter of routine - promote renewables INSTEAD of coal, or nuclear, when as you say most people know it doesn't work like that.

Heroditas

Careful there Sean or you'll be accused of questioning the modding!

The ban-hammer could be brought out!

Aidan1

but if all you can do is play word games, that speaks voulmes about the strength of your argument.

Not at all, the distinction is very important. Projects fail to get planning all the time on the basis of incomplete EISs. Quite often it has very little to do with the worth or otherwise of the project.

Wind farms are subsidised by electricity bill payers by means of a P.S.O levy (public service obligation). In Germany, they've already spent tens if not hundreds of billions subsidising solar panels.

So solar PV in Ger = wind in Ireland? Simple answer, not even nearly. Do you have any idea how different the support schemes are for both? Or how much cheaper wind is even on a basic technical level? The German PV tarriffs were massively expensive, partly because it was one of the few RES-E options they have (very low wind speeds), and partially because of the fact that it's a support to the domestic economy, both through the manufacture of panels and through the rents paid to landoners (a support that is allowed under EU State Aids rules). REFIT I and II are far from perfect, but they are also far far cheaper than the German system (or the system the UK uses).

This is a very good account of the effects of wind gen on prices in the Irish market;

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20091217095811/WP334.pdf

If I were a member of Greenpeace or any of the world Green parties, being publically pro-nuclear would be heresy.

Generally yes, but that has a lot to do with the political origins of the Green movement in Europe given that it sprang from the anti-nuclear/CND movement in the 1970s. However some notable figures in the movement (Lovelock for one, and the likes of Monbiot) have come out in favour of nuclear. It's not clear cut anymore.

All of that said, there would still be scale problems with building a nuclear plant here. They still need very large scale to operate efficiently (say 3 x 300MW) , probably larger than our system could deal with for the moment. In time that could be dealt with by bilateral deals with the UK, but that wouldn't get anyone over the political problems that would ensueif you actually tried to build one.

Sponge Bob

Aidan1 wrote: »

All of that said, there would still be scale problems with building a nuclear plant here. They still need very large scale to operate efficiently (say 3 x 300MW) , probably larger than our system could deal with for the moment. In time that could be dealt with by bilateral deals with the UK, but that wouldn't get anyone over the political problems that would ensueif you actually tried to build one.

Which is why I long advocated putting one (running say 2 x 500mw or 2 x 600mw) near Dublin in Wylfa, search this forum for Wylfa !

SeanW

tharlear wrote: »

I read about radar being used to deter bats from flying near turbine a couple of years ago

http://http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2872-using-radar-to-protect-bats-from-wind-turbines

They are, at best, 70% effective.

Nothing on that page suggests that it's a good idea to put a large wind turbine 160 metres from a bat roost.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Not at all, the distinction is very important. Projects fail to get planning all the time on the basis of incomplete EISs. Quite often it has very little to do with the worth or otherwise of the project.

You don't see a problem with siting a wind farm 160 metres for a large, multi-species bat roost?

So solar PV in Ger = wind in Ireland?

Well they both have to be subsidised ...

Generally yes, but that has a lot to do with the political origins of the Green movement in Europe given that it sprang from the anti-nuclear/CND movement in the 1970s.

I could accept that, if it were any credible suggestion that Ireland would want to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme.

Does anyone really imagine Enda Kenny leaping onto a balcony in the Dail, waving a sword in the air and screaming at the top of his lungs "We have used a nuclear power programme to develop nuclear weapons, which we use to reuite with our brothers in the Southern Markistani republic of Somewhereville!"

Or that the United States is secretly, unbeknownst to anyone developing nuclear weapons under the cover of their civilian nuclear infrastructure.

Perhaps this makes sense to some of the people in Greenpeace or the major world Green parties, but I fail to see why nuclear disarmament would be an issue for a civilian nuclear programme in a country like Ireland.

It also makes no sense when Global Warming, rather than the Cold War, is the hot-button issue (supposidly).

However some notable figures in the movement (Lovelock for one, and the likes of Monbiot) have come out in favour of nuclear.

Yes, James Lovelock, George Monbiot and Mark Lynas. But they're few in number, and are outcasts from their original movements.

OssianSmyth

There are many unresolved challenges for nuclear: long term waste storage, decommissioning costs and disaster risks, increasing plant build and operation costs, uranium mining environmental costs. The greatest challenge to nuclear feasibility now is probably public opinion.



Still some chance for nuclear in the UK with weaker public opposition and the Conservatives trying to tie up a deal with EDF.

For Ireland the chances of going nuclear diminish further due to our small size and the low chance of nuclear clearing planning, regulatory and public support hurdles before Moneypoint is due for replacement.

Aidan1

Well they both have to be subsidised ...

Not true, at least not all the time, which is exactly my point. PV is so much more expensive than conventional generation that it will always require a subvention to make up the difference, and in some cases that subvention is a multiple of the price of electricty. By comparison, wind is directly comparable with conventional generation in terms of price - in this country at least - and particularly once the price of carbon is taken into account (and it will be post 2013 when the free allowances under the ETS end). The support schemes here (AER and then REFIT) are structured so that the additional cost to the consumer tends towards zero as the prices converge. For the earlier schemes, wind actually results in a saving once conventional is more expensive - the savings are paid back into the PSO pool. Long story short, wind only requires a very small subsidy at the worst of times, and for the rest of the time it actually saves consumers money.

could accept that, if it were any credible suggestion that Ireland would want to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme.

Red Herring.

#1. It is a question of anti-nuclear being an article of faith as much as anything else. It's part of the foundational myth of the environmental movement, strengthened particularly here by the Sellafield campaign, and won't be easily surrendered.

#2. In the unlikely event that we were to be operating a Station, we would need to find someone to process spent fuel rods; I'm sure there are those that would suggest that pushing waste into the supply chain would facilitate the construction of further weapons.

Which is why I long advocated putting one (running say 2 x 500mw or 2 x 600mw) near Dublin in Wylfa

Only brings new problems and no benefits. If the supposed benefit is security of supply, how could we be sure that we'd have access to the output in a crisis? What's in it for the UK? How would the population in the take the idea of having all of that (perceived) risk and no benefit? Much better to sign a deal swapping baseload from the UK grid for renewable exports. Our system is so much smaller than the UK one that it could actually be accomodated relatively easily, and we could take advantage of all of that cheap renewables.