Pylons

JRant

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your wrong there - changing from coal and peat to gas will save far more emissions than wasting resources on failing renewables like wind. That is why the US is cutting emissions far faster than the EU. Irelands emmissions can also be cut significantly by a variety of simple energy saving measures which are increasingly helped by technology in both home and business. Restoring natural carbon sinks like the BNM midland bogs would also help hugely - and would make a lot more sense than destroying them for good with roads and concrete to support all these giant Wind turbines projects

Well the US were starting from a very high level of CO2 to begin with. The implementation of more efficient engines and lighter cars has had a greater impact on emission level there.

The agri sector accounts for a significant proportion of our emission levels. If you want to seriously reduce emissions then there's your starting point.

CCGT's are extremely efficient however they still rely on gas. As we don't have an abundant supply ourselves relying on it only weakens our energy security. Replacing as much as we can with naturally produced power is a must. At the moment wind is the more mature tech, this may well change in 20/30 years time but for now it makes a lot of pracitical sense to use what we have.

Birdnuts

Heroditas wrote: »

This has been discussed already.
You ignored it the last time so there's not much point discussing it again. Switching from coal and peat to gas will not allow Ireland to hit those targets. Anyway, peat is already being phased out as part of the carbon emissions reduction programme.
To eliminate coal will require a sharp increase in the price of carbon which will result in an overall wholesale MWh price increase here.

A bit rich coming from someone who ignores everything on this thread that doesn't fit in with the PR spin of the wind industry. At least you've admitted that wind won't eliminate coal plants - and we already know about what a failure wind has been in Germany in terms of cost and emmissions in this area. Something that you and your wind fan boys continually ignore!!

JRant

Birdnuts wrote: »

A bit rich coming from someone who ignores everything on this thread that doesn't fit in with the PR spin of the wind industry. At least you've admitted that wind won't eliminate coal plants - and we already know about what a failure wind has been in Germany in terms of cost and emmissions in this area. Something that you and your wind fan boys continually ignore!!

I thought the German emission figures were dealt with much earlier in this thread?

You do realise the fossil fuels are far more subsidised than any other fuel source.

Birdnuts

JRant wrote: »

.

CCGT's are extremely efficient however they still rely on gas. As we don't have an abundant supply ourselves relying on it only weakens our energy security. Replacing as much as we can with naturally produced power is a must. At the moment wind is the more mature tech, this may well change in 20/30 years time but for now it makes a lot of pracitical sense to use what we have.

Can you explain how an intermittent and unreliable energy source like wind contributes to our "energy security"?? - since it has to be backed up by conventional energy sources likes gas etc. There were prolonged periods last year during the summer and early winter when there was hardly a puff of wind across the country. This is reflected in Eirgrids energy charts which show how little wind energy (at times less than 1%) contributed to our energy needs during significant periods of time last year despite the ever increasing number of wind farms in the country

Birdnuts

Heroditas wrote: »

This has been discussed already.
You ignored it the last time so there's not much point discussing it again. Switching from coal and peat to gas will not allow Ireland to hit those targets. Anyway, peat is already being phased out as part of the carbon emissions reduction programme.
To eliminate coal will require a sharp increase in the price of carbon which will result in an overall wholesale MWh price increase here.

Here's some more uncomfortable reading for the windbaggers

http://www.naturalnews.com/039488_wind_farms_carbon_dioxide_emissions.html

Guess where a significant number of Irish wind farms have been sited and planned??

Birdnuts

JRant wrote: »

I thought the German emission figures were dealt with much earlier in this thread?

.

They certainly have and it was shown that increasing amounts of wind energy has failed to reduce CO2 emmissions in Germany as coal has increasingly been used to fill the gaps left by winds unreliability

Mountainsandh

JRant wrote: »

The agri sector accounts for a significant proportion of our emission levels. If you want to seriously reduce emissions then there's your starting point

In this discussion though, when the biofuel or methane reprocessing options are mentioned they are instantaneously dismissed, for costs reasons. Costs are going to be incurred for either the current trend to increase wind power, and/or the upgrade of grid to accommodate the latter.
The options above are there for the taking, with a downright dismissive attitude no progress can be made re agri sector emissions.

Capt'n Midnight

Mullingar Sheila wrote: »

The problem is the backup thermal plant has to stay spinning in order to stabilise the frequency when unsustainable wind RE is the RE source.

what actually happens is that open cycle gas turbines are normally run at up to 2/3rd's of their maximum rating so they can go to full power in less than 15 seconds. It's like driving a car, most of the time you cruise along, but put the food down when you need to overtake or go up hills.

Ignore any guff about wear and tear on cycling because that's only if you turn off the turbine fully. Idling doesn't cause that much wear. Again it's like comparing multiple cold starts with a car engine against toddling along on a motorway at 50Kph.


Demand varies a lot between winter and summer it even varies a lot between day and night. So the power system has to be flexible anyway.

If you use Nuclear then you need a LOT of spinning reserve. The UK will need 3.2GW of spinning reserve to backup Hinkley C. Here we need just 0.036MW to cater for the loss of the biggest wind farm we have.

Just to repeat that, the spinning reserve we need for wind farms is only a tiny fraction of that needed to backup the existing large generators and transformers. So zero capital cost more or less.

And again the measured amount of reserve power to backup wind was just 0.1% of the energy supplied by wind.



At present we are limited to 50% of non-synchronous generation but Eirgrid have already set much higher targets for this.


[quote[Captain Midnight, yes it is entirely possible to build as you suggest but in reality why would you build a hydro plant when you have an abundant solar source, I appreciate your argumentative point though. I don't wish to get into semantics, my point was that the RE source should be suitable for the environment it is placed in and in itself should be sustainable.[/QUOTE]but there's no solar at night :eek:


Renewables aren't dispatchable. This is exactly the same problem cyclists and scheduled airliners have with tailwinds. They don't rely on tailwinds, but if they are there they'll use them.


"suitable for the environment" what does that mean ?
its very subjective

The Ice Age ended 11,716 years ago.

The bogs only formed from about 5,000 years ago

A few hundred years ago most of the country was still covered by woodlands.

Jester252

Mountainsandh wrote: »

No, we will have to agree to disagree on that. There is always something to learn from looking at what is being done abroad, even when the variables are different. As a matter of fact I remember foreign models being mentioned several times on Irish documentation so thankfully your view is not shared by all.

And these models being applied to an Irish report.

I don't have the technical knowledge to follow your very specific quotes, but the bottom line is that your attitude is simply dismissive of all other options. There are always other options.
And again the every little helps approach to reducing emissions is downright dismissed.

We can't solve a current problem based off what might be usable in some point in the future. I never dismissed other options, but Ireland cannot reach its legally binding targets without wind.

I have to say I am happy to find that all documentation I have read on the matter, and in general, ministerial approach, do not seem as dismissive as your approach, so I think there is reasonable hope that changes will be made to the current project.

What you call dismissive I call realistic

I am currently in a town with a plentiful supply of nuclear, wind, and hydro energy, where they are replacing all town owned gymnasiums, concert halls, and other collective building roofs with photovoltaic panels. They also have insulation schemes and incentives going, and they are just about to pilot a scheme where homeowners will be encouraged and somehow supported to charge their electric cars with Private PV installations.
Should they adopt your attitude, these people would simply bask in the comfort of their nuclear plant energy, and maybe hydro, after all, these installations are there years, more than likely paid for by now, they are the quickest, easiest option (and considering I can see the nuclear plant out my window, more than likely the cheapest transmission option too). They would not have "needed" to bother with wind either.

Lets examine this

Nuclear: illegal to generate in Ireland
Hydro: very few rivers able to produce a usable flow required
Wind: Ireland is one of the windiest places in the world

PV panels: used more for local heating, doesn't help with our electricity targets
Insulation scheme: exist in Ireland, doesn't help with our electricity targets
Electric car: exist in Ireland, doesn't help with our electricity targets

Where in France is the town located?

Are they stopping/hindering all development of energy saving and renewable technology in order to allow a possible future source to be used like you what?

Jester252

Mountainsandh wrote: »

In this discussion though, when the biofuel or methane reprocessing options are mentioned they are instantaneously dismissed, for costs reasons. Costs are going to be incurred for either the current trend to increase wind power, and/or the upgrade of grid to accommodate the latter.
The options above are there for the taking, with a downright dismissive attitude no progress can be made re agri sector emissions.

The gird upgrade is not only to do with wind, so stop with the falsehoods.

As I already linked the Refit scheme gives Bio fuels about twice as much per MW than wind.
Also biofuels producer are going to need an incentive to sell the produced bio fuels to the plant i.e rapeseed. It important to remember that biofuel distillation is pretty easy and diesel vehicles can be convert to biofuel for cheap.

Now taking the argi diesel price of a euro a litre.

Too make it worth while for the farmer to sell you his fuel you need to offer him more that a euro a litre. You also have to pay him for work and rent also, might be a reducing seen as he can see you the unprocessed fuel.

Heroditas

Birdnuts wrote: »

Here's some more uncomfortable reading for the windbaggers

http://www.naturalnews.com/039488_wind_farms_carbon_dioxide_emissions.html

Guess where a significant number of Irish wind farms have been sited and planned??

The article was sourced from the Torygraph, hardly a bastion of impartial reporting.

joela

Here's some more uncomfortable reading for the windbaggers

http://www.naturalnews.com/039488_wi...emissions.html

Guess where a significant number of Irish wind farms have been sited and planned??

Heroditas wrote: »

The article was sourced from the Torygraph, hardly a bastion of impartial reporting.

I think I've already dealt with this one on this thread but perhaps not.

Birdnuts have you read the original paper? If you haven't then you should because it has been widely misquoted and misused to the point where the authors made a number of public statements on the matter. I link to the original paper on nature and the comment made on behalf of the authors as well as a piece which includes quotes from the authors. I'm sorry I can't seem to find my copy of the whole article at the moment so can only link to the abstract.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/489033d.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120906#comment-53732

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/site-windfarms-carefully,-for-peats-sake/

On a personal level I would prefer that areas of blanket bog which is in reasonably good nick, very little left like this in Ireland, is not used for wind farms. The cutaway bogs however are a different issue as they are currently carbon emitters and putting turbines on them is unlikely to cause significant increase. While I appreciate the Lough Boora Parklands for their bird life and beauty I would prefer to see the cutaways vegetated by natural woodland and scrub as standing water is only marginally better then bare peat in terms of GHG emissions. If BnM put turbines on some of the cutaway I would like to see planning conditions include a robust scientific and enforceable requirement to actively restore other large areas of cutaway in the midlands for nature conservation purposes. I'd be pushing to ensure this doesn't simply involve letting water pool etc. but a proper programme to revegetate these areas.

joela

The bogs only formed from about 5,000 years ago

A few hundred years ago most of the country was still covered by woodlands.

Some of our raised bogs are 10,000 years old, the blanket bogs tend to be slightly younger ca. 5,000 + years ago.

Mountainsandh

Jester252 wrote: »

Where in France is the town located?

Are they stopping/hindering all development of energy saving and renewable technology in order to allow a possible future source to be used like you what?

I'm along the Rhone valley, in the South of France, in Montelimar, where Nougat comes from.
People accept what is necessary, and acceptable here, like in Ireland.
Wind turbines are not welcome, since they are spreading like mushrooms, and 3 turbines have got on fire over the last few years in the area, and from the place I'm staying in, we can see the stumps left there to rust. Went for a drive by them 2 days ago, will link to pics when back home if you like. Of the remaining un exploded ones, some are not functioning (but still standing), something like 3 non functioning out of maybe 9 or 10 remaining. (Plus the 3 destroyed ones)
People are understandably peed off.
Projects are a lot more transparent here, people are better informed, and if the information is not widely made public, it will be available online.
For example information on the local 4 reactors power plant safety record is posted online for whoever is interested (incidents, reports of inspections, etc...).

It's easier to get people on board when the intent and extent of projects are clear.

Not the case with grid link. People here have been suggesting answers that are not forthcoming from Eirgrid, there should be no need for this thread.

A lot of pylons here, obviously distributing from the power plant. Not nice, but then again, the plant employs a lot of people, energy bills are low, and the pretty places away from the spot are generally protected, the turbines are more of a bother. The Rhone valley is a very industrial area, infrastructure is a given from Lyon all the way down to here, it has been so for centuries, as often the case with major commercial waterways.
This plant powers 40% of the Rhone-Alpes region I think, which is a little more than half the surface of the Entire island of Ireland, with about the same population (6,1M) Iirc. (It's called the Cruas Meysse centrale for anyone interested).

Jester252

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm along the Rhone valley, in the South of France, in Montelimar, where Nougat comes from.
People accept what is necessary, and acceptable here, like in Ireland.
Wind turbines are not welcome, since they are spreading like mushrooms, and 3 turbines have got on fire over the last few years in the area, and from the place I'm staying in, we can see the stumps left there to rust. Went for a drive by them 2 days ago, will link to pics when back home if you like. Of the remaining un exploded ones, some are not functioning (but still standing), something like 3 non functioning out of maybe 9 or 10 remaining. (Plus the 3 destroyed ones)

Now who is being dismissive of renewable sources?

You can understand that a solar project in the south of France for electric cars chargers might not work in Ireland. Seen as Ireland the same system in Ireland will produce around 35% less KWh.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Pvgis_Europe-solar_opt_publication.png

People are understandably peed off.
Projects are a lot more transparent here, people are better informed, and if the information is not widely made public, it will be available online.
For example information on the local 4 reactors power plant safety record is posted online for whoever is interested (incidents, reports of inspections, etc...).

It's easier to get people on board when the intent and extent of projects are clear.

Not the case with grid link. People here have been suggesting answers that are not forthcoming from Eirgrid, there should be no need for this thread.

I'm able to get the answers.

A lot of pylons here, obviously distributing from the power plant. Not nice, but then again, the plant employs a lot of people, energy bills are low, and the pretty places away from the spot are generally protected, the turbines are more of a bother. The Rhone valley is a very industrial area, infrastructure is a given from Lyon all the way down to here, it has been so for centuries, as often the case with major commercial waterways.
This plant powers 40% of the Rhone-Alpes region I think, which is a little more than half the surface of the Entire island of Ireland, with about the same population (6,1M) Iirc. (It's called the Cruas Meysse centrale for anyone interested).

Too bad we outlawed Nuclear power.

Mountainsandh

Jester252 wrote: »

Now who is being dismissive of renewable sources?

I'm able to get the answers.

.

Jester you don't quite seem to understand my point of view, although I have stated it clearly many times : I grew up in Lyon, I know the need for infrastructure, I understand it, I lived happily surrounded by infrastructure.
I understand the need for renewables.

My problem with current schemes and approach within Ireland, is the complete lack of scale, the lack of transparency, the narrow minded focus on wind to the point of exporting, and the effect it will have on other aspects of the Irish economy and quality of life.
I definitely have a problem with non operational renewables infrastructure further affecting people's quality of life and the economy. And the environment, in the sense that these self igniting turbines would have caused a large bush fire were it not for the season they ignited in.

It's not the fact that infrastructure is needed, and that renewable energy has to be used.

With all due respect, your answers to Eirgrid's blurry statements are what you choose them to be Jester, it is asking a lot to take the word of a Boardsie rather than hear clear statements from a semi state company, and the ministerial authorities concerned.

Despite suggestions otherwise in previous pages, it is evident that the Gridlink project is in part to accommodate greater amounts of wind energy (it is stated clearly), what is not clear is to what scale, and for which wind energy (exports and imports).

There's no pulling hairs about it, the Midlands may or may not export its own power, but it is not the only export potential considered in Ireland, in fact again in Gridlink links I remember reading about the South East area's potential for export.

I attach some pics of these banjaxed turbines for whomever's interested.
Of a set up of 12 windmills you have the 3 destroyed ones, and another 3 are non operational although you can't tell from the pic since my shutter speed froze all motion (if you enlarge you can nearly tell). One banjaxed turbine is a lower stump, not visible from this angle.

People there are not against windmills, like myself, but they definitely are against 6 inactive metal wrecks still standing up on that hill.

I'm also attaching a pic of the plant and another with a closer view of a black looking building, which is one of these town buildings (a concert venue) fitted with PV panels. There are panels on the roof as well.

The EU targets concern emissions, and PVs would contribute to reducing emissions, I don't know how you can dismiss that.

As CM has stated on numerous occasions, Ireland has the capacity to increase wind contribution to a very satisfactory level. Remember I am not against wind energy, I am against excess in scale to the size of this very little country. In my book if wind energy contribution is to be increased for Ireland, then it definitely rules out using wind energy for exports.

PV to whatever percentage would be a great contribution towards reducing emissions to reach targets, but hey, whatever, dismiss away. There's no money to be made from it.

Jester252

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Jester you don't quite ......

Your the one who doesn't seem to understand. You got a sh1t deal with the turbines. By the looks of it they where cheaply made and not from a reputable company. I can see why you would be anti-wind development

However

• Ireland has legally binding targets for 2020, which we are already facing fines for non compliance
• Security of supply is very important
• Ireland has one of the highest potentials for wind and wave
• Wind Turbines are commercial avaible
• Ireland has a low tidal and hydro potential
• Ireland has produce 35% less kWh/m^2 than the south of France
• Ireland has less sunny days
• While solar panels are dropping in price, it's the most expensive electricity source
• Ireland made nuclear generation illegal
• Biomass will cost the end user more (Refit)

Biomass will be leading Ireland renewables in the transport sector
Solar will be leading Ireland renewables in the heating sector
Wind will be leading Ireland renewables in the electricity sector

2025 is when Biofules will hopefully make a big push into the electricity with Moneypoint

Solar will dominate heating with, I hope, legal requirements to fit them to new building.

2030; Wave is forecast to be making a noticeable splash in the electricity sector.

Nuclear depends on which politician whats to leave office first.

Birdnuts

Jester252 wrote: »

Your the one who doesn't seem to understand. You got a sh1t deal with the turbines. By the looks of it they where cheaply made and not from a reputable company. I can see why you would be anti-wind development

However

• Ireland has legally binding targets for 2020, which we are already facing fines for non compliance
• Security of supply is very important
• Ireland has one of the highest potentials for wind and wave
• Wind Turbines are commercial avaible
• Ireland has a low tidal and hydro potential
• Ireland has produce 35% less kWh/m^2 than the south of France
• Ireland has less sunny days
• While solar panels are dropping in price, it's the most expensive electricity source
• Ireland made nuclear generation illegal
• Biomass will cost the end user more (Refit)

Biomass will be leading Ireland renewables in the transport sector
Solar will be leading Ireland renewables in the heating sector
Wind will be leading Ireland renewables in the electricity sector

2025 is when Biofules will hopefully make a big push into the electricity with Moneypoint

Solar will dominate heating with, I hope, legal requirements to fit them to new building.

2030; Wave is forecast to be making a noticeable splash in the electricity sector.

.

Forecasts,assumptions etc. aren't worth a tin of beans when supporters of such things steadfastly refuse to accept the mounting evidence from around the world the renewable energy is failing badly on costs and emmissions reductions. Indeed trotting out lines like "energy security" in relation to the likes of wind is simply laughable as I pointed out earlier in the thread using Eirgrids own data in relation to existing wind turbines on this island. Biofuels are another con-job in this regard as the have been shown to drive up the price of food for some of the poorest people in the world and biofuel firms have been implicated in land grabs throughout Africa etc.. They like wind also save few emmissions after their harvesting and transport are accounted for. They are also becoming a leading cause of deforestation and habitat destruction in many countries as virgin lands are cleared to grow them. As with most reneweable energies - its a sad reflection on the modern "Green movement" that "Green Wash" seems to be the order of the day as illustrated by the likes of Eamonn Ryan and his constant spinning for big business and other vested interests in this area.

Interesting too how the windbaggers also dismiss the energy from waste merits given the amount of animal waste etc. produced in this country. Farmers in some of the poorest parts of Africa(Uganda was featured recently on AL Jaazeraa) are now gathering and using cow pats to produce a methane gas supply that powers local villages and homesteads. Yet we're told we can't set up a simple system in this country to do the same thing despite our modern agri industry and access to vast amounts of stored slurry etc.. Obviously the right vested interests wouldn't make a big enough cut as this would involve local benefits as opposed to corporate raids by big wind energy interests.

Jester252

Birdnuts wrote: »

Forecasts,assumptions etc. aren't worth a tin of beans when supporters of such things steadfastly refuse to accept the mounting evidence from around the world the renewable energy is failing badly on costs and emmissions reductions. Indeed trotting out lines like "energy security" in relation to the likes of wind is simply laughable as I pointed out earlier in the thread using Eirgrids own data in relation to existing wind turbines on this island. Biofuels are another con-job in this regard as the have been shown to drive up the price of food for some of the poorest people in the world and biofuel firms have been implicated in land grabs throughout Africa etc.. They like wind also save few emmissions after their harvesting and transport are accounted for. They are also becoming a leading cause of deforestation and habitat destruction in many countries as virgin lands are cleared to grow them. As with most reneweable energies - its a sad reflection on the modern "Green movement" that "Green Wash" seems to be the order of the day as illustrated by the likes of Eamonn Ryan and his constant spinning for big business and other vested interests in this area.

Interesting too how the windbaggers also dismiss the energy from waste merits given the amount of animal waste etc. produced in this country. Farmers in some of the poorest parts of Africa(Uganda was featured recently on AL Jaazeraa) are now gathering and using cow pats to produce a methane gas supply that powers local villages and homesteads. Yet we're told we can't set up a simple system in this country to do the same thing despite our modern agri industry and access to vast amounts of stored slurry etc.. Obviously the right vested interests wouldn't make a big enough cut as this would involve local benefits as opposed to corporate raids by big wind energy interests.

Do yourself a favour and just stop.

Birdnuts

Jester252 wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and just stop.

Says the chap who can only parrot puff pieces from vested interests connected to the wind industry. Isn't it interesting that the EU last year cut targets for biofuel use on the back of the environmental and economic concerns I outlined earlier and since the start of this year is looking to do the same with wind energy. Its clear that you and your fellow travellers on here would prefer if such facts don't get an airing in public.

darkpagandeath

Birdnuts wrote: »

Says the chap who can only parrot puff pieces from vested interests connected to the wind industry. Isn't it interesting that the EU last year cut targets for biofuel use on the back of the environmental and economic concerns I outlined earlier and since the start of this year is looking to do the same with wind energy. Its clear that you and your fellow travellers on here would prefer if such facts don't get an airing in public.

You do know that Ireland CO2 emissions per capita are ahead say of the UK for example we produce loads of CO2 . We need renewables.

Birdnuts

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You do know that Ireland CO2 emissions per capita are ahead say of the UK for example we produce loads of CO2 . We need renewables.

I've mentioned already the many ways we can reduce emissions in this thread - we don't need to waste money and destroy the Irish landscape using outdated technologies that has failed elsewhere. The stupidity of the rush into costly reneawables is already hitting energy intensive industries across Europe with many packing up and heading abroad as outlined in the case of Germany on last weeks Prime Time . This is also one of the primary reasons that the EU is looking again at its renewables energy targets. In any case Irelands emmissions barely register on an EU scale(let alone a world one) so what good will come of these targets is very hard to gauge given that the likes of the big emmittors like the US,China are powering ahead with business as usual while the EU losses heavy industry to countries with cheaper energy prices based on conventionals, nuclear etc.

Jester252

Birdnuts wrote: »

Says the chap who can only parrot puff pieces from vested interests connected to the wind industry. Isn't it interesting that the EU last year cut targets for biofuel use on the back of the environmental and economic concerns I outlined earlier and since the start of this year is looking to do the same with wind energy. Its clear that you and your fellow travellers on here would prefer if such facts don't get an airing in public.

Stop, just stop. I'm tossing you a rope, climb out of the hole you're digging.

You are showing you ignorance on renewable energy.

Birdnuts

Jester252 wrote: »

Stop, just stop. I'm tossing you a rope, climb out of the hole you're digging.

You are showing you ignorance on renewable energy.

Your beginning to sound desperate - I also suspect you have a problem with free speech which is something that appears to be a common affliction among the pseudo greens.

Jester252

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your beginning to sound desperate - I also suspect you have a problem with free speech which is something that appears to be a common affliction among the pseudo greens.

I have no issue with your free* speech. I'm trying to give you an escape route. You can't come back from trashing and praising Biofuels in the same post.

*BTW Ireland doesn't have free speech, hate speech is illegal. Also Boards.ie is a private company and users have rules on what they can say.

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

However

• Ireland has one of the highest potentials for wind and wave
• Wind Turbines are commercial avaible
• Ireland has a low tidal and hydro potential
• Ireland has produce 35% less kWh/m^2 than the south of France
• Ireland has less sunny days
• While solar panels are dropping in price, it's the most expensive electricity source
• Ireland made nuclear generation illegal
• Biomass will cost the end user more (Refit)

Nuclear power can't be done properly on the cheap, it's just that simple.

Fukishima is leaking , yet again. It's PR 101 , when you whole industry's reputation relies on a clean up job it's important not to keep screwing up time after time.

Nuclear power is not a good fit for Ireland. EDF's offering is 1.6GW, which matches our summer night valley. So you'd think that it would be ideal for base load. Except we'd need spinning reserve of 1.6GW in case it went off line. All the other stuff like Thorium , pebble bed, liquid salt , breeders with a resonantly high breeding ratio have been in development hell for between 50 and 70 years. Even if they worked it takes 10+ years to build a nuclear power plant and that's a lot of fossil fuel, concrete, and CO2 emissions before you get a single unit of electricity out of it.

Yes people go on about small modular reactors. These come in two types. Theoretical ones that exist only in simulations, and naval reactors that have been in use since the 1950's but have never been commercialised and I can only imagine that's because they cost too much. Western naval reactors


Solar and wind are still dropping in price. Nuclear just hasn't despite all the PR to the contrary.

Solar is seasonal, but it's nice when it works. And should be very low cost in future when integrated into roof tiles or windows or cladding. Since we are more than 45 degrees above the equator vertical solar panels produce more power than horizontal ones, and our low temperatures help a little too.

fr336

http://www.neverpaintagain.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/down-with-this-sort-of-thing.jpg

Birdnuts

Jester252 wrote: »

I have no issue with your free* speech. I'm trying to give you an escape route. You can't come back from trashing and praising Biofuels in the same post.

*BTW Ireland doesn't have free speech, hate speech is illegal. Also Boards.ie is a private company and users have rules on what they can say.

Can you not tell the difference between biofuels and energy from waste?? or do you not understand simple English??

PS: Boards also have rules against back seat modding

Greensleeves

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You do know that Ireland CO2 emissions per capita are ahead say of the UK for example we produce loads of CO2 . We need renewables.

Reducing CO2 is a bit more complicated than just relying on renewables. Denmark has lots of renewable energy but a big carbon footprint; 4th biggest in the world in 2012.

http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/05/qatar-largest-carbon-footprint/

Heroditas

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you not tell the difference between biofuels and energy from waste??

Energy from waste? Such as, for example, biogas from cow manure ... a biofuel.