Ikea buys windfarm to power Dublin and Belfast stores

paddy147

Fair play to them for doing it too.......hope it works out for them.:)


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ikea-buys-windfarm-to-power-stores-in-dublin-and-belfast-1.1491810

podgemonster

I hope they have to assemble the turbines themselves.

princess-lala

Saves on ESB bills I suppose, then they can sell back the leftovers to ESB!

The Backwards Man

The cable probably goes out to Rockall and back between the turbine and the store.

kneemos

Windfarms are a freaking uneconomical unsightly feel good green joke.I chop them down with the back of my hand.

JJayoo

I wonder will other big chains such as Tescos follow suit, going green will always be a positive and generate some decent publicity. It might also encourage a new system of building smaller scale wind farms.

MadsL

WïNDMïLL?

JJayoo

kneemos wrote: »

Windfarms are a freaking uneconomical unsightly feel good green joke.I chop them down with the back of my hand.

Jesus you must be massive

NuckingFacker

I support this fully. A great move. I have my own windfarm in my jocks, it delivers a serious amount of power - gas altogether when it is blowing.

Cookie_Monster

They will generate 25GWh of electricity

no they won't, the odd time they might but for the most part they'll get nowhere near this figure and Ikea will still buy plenty of thermally generated power.

Why not do something actually useful like put PV solar on the store roofs and water collection systems?

bgrizzley

JJayoo wrote: »

Jesus you must be massive

He a voodoo Chile...

CrazyRabbit

Half the turbines will have extra blades and the other half will be missing one.

miggins

JJayoo wrote: »

Jesus you must be massive

Only jungle is massive

NuckingFacker

Windpower is brilliant - it brings carbon credits, grants, massive installation contracts, huuge Eu subsidies, enormous construction fees, massive rents, Tax concessions etc etc. About all it doesn't do is generate useable, viable electricity. Apart from that, it's brilliant! Go green power! Lets save the environment....by building huuge sh1t....yay.

JJayoo

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Windpower is brilliant - it brings carbon credits, grants, massive installation contracts, huuge Eu subsidies, enormous construction fees, massive rents, Tax concessions etc etc. About all it doesn't do is generate useable, viable electricity. Apart from that, it's brilliant! Go green power! Lets save the environment....by building huuge sh1t....yay.

Some new battery innovations may bring the solution.

"Currently the electrical grid cannot tolerate large and sudden power fluctuations caused by wide swings in sunlight and wind. As solar and wind's combined contributions to an electrical grid approach 20 percent, energy storage systems must be available to smooth out the peaks and valleys of this "intermittent" power -- storing excess energy and discharging when input drops"

"The new Stanford/SLAC battery design uses only one stream of molecules and does not need a membrane at all. Its molecules mostly consist of the relatively inexpensive elements lithium and sulfur, which interact with a piece of lithium metal coated with a barrier that permits electrons to pass without degrading the metal. When discharging, the molecules, called lithium polysulfides, absorb lithium ions; when charging, they lose them back into the liquid. The entire molecular stream is dissolved in an organic solvent, which doesn't have the corrosion issues of water-based flow batteries.

"In initial lab tests, the new battery also retained excellent energy-storage performance through more than 2,000 charges and discharges, equivalent to more than 5.5 years of daily cycles," Cui said."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424140603.htm

NuckingFacker

Oh yeah, I forgot, it also brings a massive boon for battery manufacturers. Anyone who has switched off their car engine(oil btw...:D)and relied on their battery to run the radio, lights and interior fan knows how well that's going. UUUgh,uugh,ugh,gh,h..........Luckily, Apple iPhones and Laptops have benefitted from battery technology advances and now only need charging eeerrr, constantly..

JJayoo

Good for you nucking, don't ever let not reading a link hold you back from guessing what it's about and then commenting on it.

kneemos

JJayoo wrote: »

Good for you nucking, don't ever let not reading a link hold you back from guessing what it's about and then commenting on it.

Two things I don't understand is how they will save money and how they will be totally run on green energy by 2020.

JJayoo

kneemos wrote: »

Two things I don't understand is how they will save money and how they will be totally run on green energy by 2020.

Well the link I posted was only about a new grid storage battery system for storing renewable energy so I don't know. But I am assuming there are some big EU grants for such Green energy stuff, or maybe IKEA just have soooooooooooo much cash they want to splash some of it on doing green stuff.

NuckingFacker

JJayoo wrote: »

Good for you nucking, don't ever let not reading a link hold you back from guessing what it's about and then commenting on it.

I'll try hard not to.

JJayoo wrote: »

Well the link I posted was only about a new grid storage battery system for storing renewable energy so I don't know. But I am assuming there are some big EU grants for such Green energy stuff, or maybe IKEA just have soooooooooooo much cash they want to splash some of it on doing green stuff.

See, wait and someone will tell..You're sort of contradicting your own self there. Windpower is like electric cars - great ideaish, but you'd better not be relying on it, or the fancy battery.

kneemos

JJayoo wrote: »

Well the link I posted was only about a new grid storage battery system for storing renewable energy so I don't know. But I am assuming there are some big EU grants for such Green energy stuff, or maybe IKEA just have soooooooooooo much cash they want to splash some of it on doing green stuff.

Make something that is already uneconomical more expensive by adding huge battery storage.Mad as hatters.

NuckingFacker

kneemos wrote: »

Make something that is already uneconomical more expensive by adding huge battery storage.Mad as hatters.

But, but, Kneemos..them batteries are eco-friendly man! They dig up all the toxic stuff using green shovels dude, and rabbits build them, c'mon man, you're just being a luddite.. and when they're worn out, they make them into water-parks for disadvantaged kids... get with it, ffs...


The real kicker with all this GUFF, is that it affects everyone -the price of electricity is going up and up, because the level of subsidies paid to the fruit-bat squad have to come from somwhere, and guess where that is - you and me and our old stylee electricity. If all subsidies were removed, two things would happen - no-one would mention windfarms and electricity would be much cheaper for everyone.. which is even madder..

JJayoo

Solar/ wind energy is only uneconomical because there is no easy/cost effective way of storing the energy created. The battery innovation I linked will allow this energy to be stored, but lads don't let relevant information get in the way :rolleyes:

PS so excited for Nucking's next "funny" post, because the last one was great with the rabbits and stuff.

pljudge321

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no they won't, the odd time they might but for the most part they'll get nowhere near this figure and Ikea will still buy plenty of thermally generated power.

Why not do something actually useful like put PV solar on the store roofs and water collection systems?

Maybe you should look up the difference between power and energy.

For anyone who'd like to check the actual stats for how much energy we generate from wind all the stats and 15 min hourly data going back several years are available on Eirgrids website. Last time I checked we generated about 18% of our total electrical energy consumption from wind (in 2012), which is roughly the same percentage wise as the UK gets from nuclear.

kneemos

pljudge321 wrote: »

Maybe you should look up the difference between power and energy.

For anyone who'd like to check the actual stats for how much energy we generate from wind all the stats and 15 min hourly data going back several years are available on Eirgrids website. Last time I checked we generated about 18% of our total electrical energy consumption from wind (in 2012), which is roughly the same percentage wise as the UK gets from nuclear.

It's not the quantity it's the cost of the power they generate and the enviromental damage they do.

josip

kneemos wrote: »

It's not the quantity it's the cost of the power they generate and the enviromental damage they do.

Aren't most innovations costly initially? The environmental damage is a factor alright, especially when they're installed in bogs, but are the alternatives much better? How much concrete would a new power station require compared to the equivalent number of turbines? How much does the UK spend each year "dealing" with waste reactor plutonium?

PV was also mentioned, but I thought from my solar panel purchasing days that PV was fairly unsuited to Ireland (except this summer). If PV continues to improve in efficency will it become a more viable option for Ireland rather than wind?

Are there any efficiency gains left to squeeze out of wind turbines or is the primary focus now on storage?

Finally, I thought that a luddite was someone who is opposed to a new technology rather than someone who was a proponent of it. Have I misunderstood something?

kneemos

josip wrote: »

Aren't most innovations costly initially? The environmental damage is a factor alright, especially when they're installed in bogs, but are the alternatives much better? How much concrete would a new power station require compared to the equivalent number of turbines? How much does the UK spend each year "dealing" with waste reactor plutonium?

PV was also mentioned, but I thought from my solar panel purchasing days that PV was fairly unsuited to Ireland (except this summer). If PV continues to improve in efficency will it become a more viable option for Ireland rather than wind?

Are there any efficiency gains left to squeeze out of wind turbines or is the primary focus now on storage?

Finally, I thought that a luddite was someone who is opposed to a new technology rather than someone who was a proponent of it. Have I misunderstood something?

We already have the power stations,turbines aren't replacing anything.

Tazz T

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no they won't, the odd time they might but for the most part they'll get nowhere near this figure and Ikea will still buy plenty of thermally generated power.

Why not do something actually useful like put PV solar on the store roofs and water collection systems?

Because it's easier to do what they're doing instead of going through Ireland's incredibly complex planning laws for such things?

Mad_Dave

kneemos wrote: »

It's not the quantity it's the cost of the power they generate.

I believe that the latest figures from this year show that new wind installations are approximately 20% cheaper than new coal plants and 15% cheaper than gas, although I'm open to contradiction.
Of course under the current system of regulation all power providers are paid the same price per MW as the most expensive provider on the network, so introducing a small amount of wind while still using coal will not lower the cost of electricity. However as more wind is introduced, and new/more storage methods are - such as coupling wind farms with pumped hydro schemes - the more expensive stations can be taken offline and the base cost of electricity should fall.

The only gripe I have with wind power is how the figures are manipulated in the media. For example the new ikea site is said to be 7.6MW. Yes, at rated wind speed. However, rated wind speed is around 2 times the average wind speed at the site, and since power output is calculated using wind speed cubed, the actually power output from the site over the year is alot less. Likewise the costs are always reported as cost per MW installed, which are alot lower than cost per MW produced.

josip

kneemos wrote: »

We already have the power stations,turbines aren't replacing anything.

Wouldn't the power stations have to be replaced at some stage?

JJayoo

Wind energy is also in it's infancy. Japan have been pumping cash into developing their wind energy sector since the tsunami fcuked up their confidence in nuclear energy. They have developed a new type of turbine called the wind lense turbine which increases energy production 2-3 times.

IMO this new technology would/could make it much more attractive for individuals to erect their own turbines in private land as a smaller turbine 6-8 meter turbine could generate as much energy as the max size,10m, turbines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQexzNg_e9A

josip

JJayoo wrote: »

Wind energy is also in it's infancy. Japan have been pumping cash into developing their wind energy sector since the tsunami fcuked up their confidence in nuclear energy. They have developed a new type of turbine called the wind lense turbine which increases energy production 2-3 times.

So wind technology has been around for decades with incremental improvements but then the Japanese decide they want a go and we get a factor of 2-3 in improvements within 2 years?

We need either more Japanese engineers or Japanese marketing people.

biko

So that's how wind is made?

Mad_Dave

josip wrote: »

We need either more Japanese engineers or Japanese marketing people.

I think in this case it's marketing. They're comparing figures for a turbine with a wind lens against the same naked turbine, when I feel it would be more correct to compare it with a turbine of equal overall diameter.
Taking the figures from their website and doing some really basic calculations (done on scrap paper in 2 minutes, so please excuse any mistakes)

12.8m turbine with lens (overall diameter 15.4m) vs naked turbine gives 1.55 times more power.
12.8m turbine with lens vs 15.4m turbine gives 1.07 times.

This highlights another concern for this idea - it doesn't seem to be scalable. The 2-3x increase was for a much smaller machine.

Edit:

biko wrote: »

So that's how wind is made?

Here ya go http://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wind.htm

Amerika

Wind power is popular now because it has a lot of fans... but a wise man knows what's watt.

But it does have its uses. I guess if you have no alternative power source because you live 100 miles from the nearest power line, then a windmill makes sense. But what does it cost (which is passed onto consumers) to purchase, maintain, and replace all those banks of storage batteries when the wind isn’t blowing? And what is the cost to the environment to produce those batteries?

kneemos

josip wrote: »

Wouldn't the power stations have to be replaced at some stage?

At the moment the power station is needed anyway for calm days.Personally I'd much prefer a power station to miles of turbines even if they were made to work,much less enviromentally damaging than those god awfull things.

JJayoo

The difference between Japan and the rest of the world at present is that they really really need energy. Their policies towards energy have changed so drastically. They were putting all their hope in nuclear.

"In the aftermath of the accident, then Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced that Japan would have to “rebuild its energy policy from scratch.” Kan scrapped the government’s plans to boost the share of nuclear power in Japan’s electricity supply to 50% by 2030, and his successor, Yoshihiko Noda, pledged to reduce nuclear dependence to zero by the 2030s—a position incorporated in the 2012 election manifesto of the Democratic Party of Japan."
http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2013/tackling-japans-energy-crisis

So Japan have a huge need/drive to find innovations that will work in a weak economy.

NuckingFacker

Hydro-electric installations, coal made more efficent, gas, oil or nuclear - if the money being pumped into wind was spent instead refining what we already know actually works, might that not be better? Are "they" sure they can't build a 1000% more efficent gas power station? If they put their minds to it, they could.

Mad_Dave

R&D into conventional power generation is ongoing, for example integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) - which as I understand it converts coal and other carbon fuels into gas.

However the two big reasons why money is being invested into wind, and all renewable sources are a) carbon based fuels are finite - and depending on who you believe are going to run out in the not too distant future, and b) security of supply. For countries with little to no natural resources it makes sense not to be wholly reliant on imported fuels.

JJayoo

This guy will save us all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HL1BEC024g

dan1895

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no they won't, the odd time they might but for the most part they'll get nowhere near this figure and Ikea will still buy plenty of thermally generated power.

Why not do something actually useful like put PV solar on the store roofs and water collection systems?

The Dublin store has a water collection system on the roof which is used for the toilets. It also some kind of system that goes under the store that gets power/heat from thermal sources, the science of which I don't understand. Don't know if there are solar panels there but wouldn't be surprised.