Pylons

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

.

A look at the cost of retail power across the EU would suggest otherwise. As for Fukishima - I don't really see the relevance of this case to the industry in Europe in terms of how the accident happened(old outdated rundown nuke built on one of the world most active earthquake/tsunami continental plates) to the modern industry in Europe.

Birdnuts

Heroditas wrote: »

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

Are you saying that growing energy crops is the same as energy from waste??

Heroditas

Birdnuts wrote: »

Are you saying that growing energy crops is the same as energy from waste??

Depends on what sort of waste you're referring to. If it's organic waste, it counts as bio-energy or bio-fuel

Birdnuts

Heroditas wrote: »

Depends on what sort of waste you're referring to. If it's organic waste, it counts as bio-energy or bio-fuel

The biofuels being pushed in Europe and the US are primarily based on growing food crops for energy. This is what I was referring to earlier as a "CON" for the reasons I gave in the same post. This is why the EU is looking to cut back on its earlier targets in the area. If you want to be pedantic and refer to the likes of forestry cuttings, slurry etc. as "biofuels" then fine but clearly they are a different(and far more sustainable) kettle of fish to those "biofuels" and by any definition come under the "energy from waste" category

Heroditas

They are still biofuels but... Wait for it... Wait for it... I agree with you. I really have a massive problem with biofuel being made from crops when anaerobic digestion can yield biogas that can then be used in CHP systems.
A number of the large agri-food businesses here are using biogas CHP with great success. The only problem is the gas is awfully filthy and necessitates more frequent oil changes in these CHP systems.
Still, there's always a constant supply of sh1te!

Jester252

Birdnuts wrote: »

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

Oh God, oh God, oh Jesus

You could have just left, you could...............Oh my God.

Go read up on Bio fuels, before it becomes possible to set up a WTE plant using your posts as fuel.

I won't even mention the irony of you P.S.

Birdnuts

Jester252 wrote: »

Oh God, oh God, oh Jesus

.

I'm so tempted to post something here that could get me banned - I'll refrain though as I find your ego-meltdown quiet amusing

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

A look at the cost of retail power across the EU would suggest otherwise.

I'm blue in the face trying to explain
that the wholesale cost is what it electricity really costs
domestic retail price includes lots of extras

It's like saying home brew is too expensive based on what a pub charges for a pint.

As for Fukishima - I don't really see the relevance of this case to the industry in Europe in terms of how the accident happened(old outdated rundown nuke built on one of the world most active earthquake/tsunami continental plates) to the modern industry in Europe.

The relevance is the complete pigs ear they've made of the clean up job even though the attention of the media is continually focused on them.

If you want new plants then remember that EDF started building their first EPR reactor in August 2005. It's not due to be finished until at least 2016. Then they find out if the design works in practice as well as theory.

Meanwhile wind and solar march on. Solar in particular can wipe out the peak price during summer. And it only takes a few seconds to ramp up or down the load following gas turbines, we just need a better grid that can cope with more asychronous supply, I'd even suggest we go DC, but that would mean expensive transformer thingies.

Can't wait until they roll out the tidal turbines up north.

Wave is still too capital intensive. Patent must be gone off Salter's duck at this stage. And again that's all on the West coast so would need better grid links. Happily enough wave complements solar as we get most waves around winter.

Jester252

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'm so tempted to post something here that could get me banned - I'll refrain though as I find your ego-meltdown quiet amusing

:rolleyes:

Saving face much?

2020 Ireland has to have 42% of electricity produced by renewable, what's your plan?

Jester252

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

While I disagree and we did have debate on this before, I was just laying out Ireland energy options. Hell none of what you mention is the biggest issue for nuclear power in Ireland, the biggest issue is the Dail.

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

The prices are dropping and wind is almost as cheap as Nuclear but Solar is still relatively expensive for a power sources.

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.

I do hope that future house have solar panels fitted as standard. Low temperature does help with efficiency but not by a major amount.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm blue in the face trying to explain
that the wholesale cost is what it electricity really costs
domestic retail price includes lots of extras

.

Retail cost is what the consumer/business pays and they are getting fed up paying it so in the real world wholescale cost are irrelevant. In any case the reason why retail costs are so high in the likes of Germany,Denmark is because of the cost of green taxes and tariffs to subsidize their wind industry in terms of direct subsidies and pylon rollout etc.

Birdnuts

Jester252 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Saving face much?

2020 Ireland has to have 42% of electricity produced by renewable, what's your plan?

These targets are up for re-negotiation at EU level ATM. It would be wise of our government to bin Eamonn Ryan's flight of fancy and follow the likes of other EU countries like the Czech Republic and Poland in following a more sustaineable energy path. However I fear the lobbying power of the wind industry in this country will cost Ireland very dearly in this regard

Zen65

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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.

"Guff" ?

Of course a start-up is especially severe on a gas turbine or steam turbine, but daily cycling down to low-loads is also pretty severe on their lifetime costs and brings forward the need to carry out parts replacement. It's not just open-cycle gas turbines which are affected, but also some closed-cycle units and large steam plant. For a steam plant to run at low loads requires that the throttles shut off the steam flow to the lead-in nozzle boxes and hence there is thermal cycling in the early rows of rotor blades which accelerates cracking at blade roots.

Idling and running at low loads costs.

Zen65

Birdnuts wrote: »

As for Fukishima - I don't really see the relevance of this case to the industry in Europe in terms of how the accident happened(old outdated rundown nuke built on one of the world most active earthquake/tsunami continental plates) to the modern industry in Europe.

The cause of the Fukishima incident was not the age of the plant; it was the design of the back-up facility which depended on having diesel generators to maintain auxiliary cooling water. Those diesel engines were overwhelmed by the tsunami and without them there were no back-up facilities to prevent the plant from melting down.

Mountainsandh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you want new plants then remember that EDF started building their first EPR reactor in August 2005. It's not due to be finished until at least 2016. Then they find out if the design works in practice as well as theory.

They must be pretty sure of the outcome since it seems Hollande's plan will be to replace most power plants with EPRs rather than shut them down to meet targets. Only one down,keep the others.
That's not official yet, but the general consensus in the papers I've read here (in France).

The alternatives need to be made work, money needs to be spent on that rather than putting all eggs in one basket. Money saved downscaling the various mega schemes to a comfortable upgrade with reasonably adequate wind development for Irish size and needs can be redirected for a start.

How many co council owned facilities could be kitted up in PVs with the proportional amount of 30k packages that would be paid to people in each area ?

Take the sunny South East, rather than pay say, 10 compensation packages to private individuals, how many solar panels could be fitted for 300 000 ? How much in another county ?
For the money saved on a lesser upgrade, less pylons erected, shorter pylons, possibly cheaper cable, easier interventions, how many PVs ?

For less wind subsidies, no pressure on system to cope with exports anymore, how much money could be redirected to solar and anaerobic ?

At the risk of repeating myself (:rolleyes::) ), we need to know how much of an upgrade would be needed to cope with Irish needs and meet targets, without the ambitious exports extras, and we are not told.

It's no good saying no to this or that alternative because they're too costly when money may be misspent on something else. If it is not misspent on the wind domestic+Exports-targets-upgrade whirlpool, then it should be easy enough to show it, with a simple comparative table. Not a great ask.

Capt'n Midnight

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The alternatives need to be made work, money needs to be spent on that rather than putting all eggs in one basket. Money saved downscaling the various mega schemes to a comfortable upgrade with reasonably adequate wind development for Irish size and needs can be redirected for a start.

Because of economies of scale you won't save any money by downsizing.

one big turbine needs less support infrastructure than many small ones. also higher up there is more, better wind , another economy of scale

you'd probably need 10 turbines to replace one turbine three times as tall
like I said earlier you'd need a 1KW turbine for household in Leitrim to replace just two large ones in a wind farm, and being closer to the ground you still wouldn't match the power

How many co council owned facilities could be kitted up in PVs with the proportional amount of 30k packages that would be paid to people in each area ?

solar replaces fossil fuel, it doesn't replace wind.

http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx
check out a few pages 17th feb - base price was 5c/unit and peak was about 28c/unit , in summer solar can target the 28c, which is actually above the retail price !, whereas wind can nibbles away at any time


It's all well and good to suggest micro power , but without even doing a back of the envelope calculation all you are doing is appealing to the heart instead of proposing a solution that gets to within an asses roar of being feasible.


UK figure is something like having solar on all homes would provide ~10% of power at peak time, and they have less clouds than we do. On a good day it will replace turf, yes it's handy but in terms of the amount of power you get and the time of day / year you get it, it would complement wind rather than replace it


And besides even if you have local wind and solar , you won't have either on a calm night and that's when you need the grid.


Biomass, AFAIK that depends heavily on fossil fuel and subsidies, at best it's pump priming, at worst it's supported entirely by tax loopholes

Sir Arthur Daley

I built a pylon out of lego once it fell

Jester252

Birdnuts wrote: »

These targets are up for re-negotiation at EU level ATM. It would be wise of our government to bin Eamonn Ryan's flight of fancy and follow the likes of other EU countries like the Czech Republic and Poland in following a more sustaineable energy path. However I fear the lobbying power of the wind industry in this country will cost Ireland very dearly in this regard

So care to provide a link?

What is sustainable to you?

If we are to follow Poland, do you what more wind and Biomass?

If we are to follow Czech Republic, do you what to continue using and importing fossil fuels?

Mountainsandh

CM I am not talking about downscaling the turbines, but the entire project, to more genuine requirements that do not involve exporting. Have wind power to a reasonable level for Ireland, save on what is superfluous and intended for exports.

Are you seriously trying to argue that downscaling the grid link project would not save money at all ?

If the project was downscaled to the level where wind does what it's supposed to do for us and not more than enough, then solar would not be in competition to wind, simply something else that can be done with the money and that will help.

We are at polar opposites but I think there is a need for both outlooks : the optimistic less specific (idealistic) ie me, and the pragmatic and informed more pessimistic ie you.
You seem to use your knowledge to tick off options, thing is, not everything around us has been achieved like that, how many well established conveniences are we enjoying today that required a leap of faith, some risk taking, or a little more optimism than just ticking off boxes ?

Not everything that can be gained from controlling "megalomaniac" impulses/national projects can be quantified right now.
Tourism, people's well being, and their understanding for necessary but measured infrastructure around them, their willingness to live amongst a reasonable level of infrastructure, and embrace rather than reject new possible options in the future, you can't quantify that, but they might have a greater impact than the number and size of turbines up a well loved hill.

Capt'n Midnight

Zen65 wrote: »

The cause of the Fukishima incident was not the age of the plant; it was the design of the back-up facility which depended on having diesel generators to maintain auxiliary cooling water. Those diesel engines were overwhelmed by the tsunami and without them there were no back-up facilities to prevent the plant from melting down.

Fukishima was and remains a systematic failure. Like most of the Japanese nuclear industry.

The only reason the Onagawa nuclear plant wasn't another Fukushima was because one man, Tatsuji Oshima fought a battle to get the sea wall raised well above what the bureaucrats wanted.

The Tōkai nuclear plant had it's sea wall raised. They finished TWO DAYS before the tsunami. Even then one of the cooling pumps failed and two out of the three diesel generators failed.

Mullingar Sheila

Hi All,
Jester you say that "Ireland has to have 42% of electricity produced by renewable"

Just to clarify, Ireland's legally binding target is 16% from all source, RES-T-H&-E.
Ireland itself (arbitrary) has put 40% in the RES-E bin (not 42%).

If greater saving in energy use were made in the 'other bins (deep insulation retrofit of homes for example) then this 40% could be arbitrarily reduced dramatically.

It is a complex area so happy to clear up any misunderstandings.

Sheila.

Heroditas

Mullingar Sheila wrote: »

If greater saving in energy use were made in the 'other bins (deep insulation retrofit of homes for example) then this 40% could be arbitrarily reduced dramatically.

The number of homes that are needed to be insulated at such a depth represents a huge cost that is greater than the cost required to raise renewable electricity generation to 40%.

A deep retrofit costs from €15000 upwards. There's grants available and people aren't availing of them. Are you advocating insulating half the country for free?

Mountainsandh

Heroditas wrote: »

The number of homes that are needed to be insulated at such a depth represents a huge cost that is greater than the cost required to raise renewable electricity generation to 40%.

A deep retrofit costs from €15000 upwards. There's grants available and people aren't availing of them. Are you advocating insulating half the country for free?

tbh a lot of people might not know about it. Inform and support and there might be a greater uptake. Don't know if you or Jester, someone mentioned solar grants, never knew about that and have solar installed.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm blue in the face trying to explain
that the wholesale cost is what it electricity really costs
domestic retail price includes lots of extras

And I'm blue in the face trying to explain that the wholesale price is irrelevant. No user pays the wholesale price, the "lots of extras" are all green extras, like renewables subsidies, feed in tarriffs, carbon taxes etc.

So the renewables companies are selling power "cheap" but they're being subsidised out the wazoozoo to do so. Their "prices" also AFAIK exclude the instability their systems cause, because they cannot match the supply of renewable power to the demand.

The wholesale price is irrelevant. Noone pays it, so the question of it is entirely theoretical. What people pay is the only relevant metric.

And it tells a much different story.

BTW Green dogma causes more CO2 emissions, not less, because every country that has chosen to either abandon nuclear power or to avoid it, burns more traditional fuels as a result.

In Germany, for example, where the government has given the greenies everything they want, that nations appetite for coal continues to grow voraciously, backed by the same government that gave the greens everything they wanted policywise - a nuclear phase out, and eye watering sums of money for renewable subsidies.

Bizarre thing though is that even after spending staggering sums of money on weather dependent renewables, they still had to choose between nuclear and fossil fuels. Guess what happened? And nothing has changed since 2007 - in fact the pace of coal craziness has accelerated.

As much I am opposed to expansion of coal fired power and the construction of new coal fired power plants - and I am implacably so - I would much prefer new coal power to ANY strategy that involves reliance on gas, because in the European context, reliance on gas means two things:

1. Wasting a fuel that could be better used if saved for domestic heating and transport.
2. We'd either have to frack for gas or rely on Russia. The former is environmentally questionable, the latter is a very bad idea, for anyone who values freedom, life and human rights, as this piece about the problems in the Ukraine clearly demonstrate.

At this point, I would go so far as to suggest that whoever supports increasing reliance on gas fired power is promoting policies that are too advantageous to Russia, and must share the blame with Russia for the murders of protesters in the Ukraine - and murder is the only word for it.

Problem is, that exactly what the Greens support - the fact that wind and solar are unstable and unreliable have what they consider to be an added bonus - the fact that only CCGT can react to the violent flucuations in renewable supply, rule out the use of both coal and nuclear (in theory at least) and this is great for them because they oppose nuclear first and foremost, but as proven in Germany, coal ... meh.

The flipside of course is that it leaves us hopelessly reliant on gas, much more so than if we did not have any renewables at all, because without their instability, nuclear, coal etc would work much better and the need for gas would be much reduced.

Heroditas

Mountainsandh wrote: »

tbh a lot of people might not know about it. Inform and support and there might be a greater uptake. Don't know if you or Jester, someone mentioned solar grants, never knew about that and have solar installed.

People don't have the money or, if they do, they'd prefer to spend that sort of money on a holiday, new kitchen or a car!
Uptake of SEAI grants has reduced from approx 50000 a few years ago to about 15000 last year.
Only a tiny percentage were fort he deeper retrofits. People are happy enough to just get their attic insulated and their walls pumped.

Heroditas

SeanW wrote: »

And I'm blue in the face trying to explain that the wholesale price is irrelevant. No user pays the wholesale price, the "lots of extras" are all green extras, like renewables subsidies, feed in tarriffs, carbon taxes etc.

So the renewables companies are selling power "cheap" but they're being subsidised out the wazoozoo to do so. Their "prices" also AFAIK exclude the instability their systems cause, because they cannot match the supply of renewable power to the demand.

The wholesale price is irrelevant. Noone pays it, so the question of it is entirely theoretical. What people pay is the only relevant metric.

Care to break down either an industrial or domestic bill into its various constituents such as the wholesale price, TUOS, DUOS, capacity charges, electricity tax, imperfections, PSO etc?

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Fukishima was and remains a systematic failure. Like most of the Japanese nuclear industry.

The only reason the Onagawa nuclear plant wasn't another Fukushima was because one man, Tatsuji Oshima fought a battle to get the sea wall raised well above what the bureaucrats wanted.

The Tōkai nuclear plant had it's sea wall raised. They finished TWO DAYS before the tsunami. Even then one of the cooling pumps failed and two out of the three diesel generators failed.

Problem when we read your story is that the hero of the piece fundamentally disagrees with your conclusions:

"Matsunaga-san hated bureaucrats," Oshima said. "He said they are like human trash. In your country, too, there are probably bureaucrats or officials who never take final responsibility. "So Matsunaga's attitude was that you've got to go beyond the regulations," Oshima said. "If you just follow the regulations, you end up with what happened at Fukushima Dai-ichi. That's what Matsunaga told Hirai, and Hirai taught me."

...

Nuclear opponents cite Japan's disaster as a compelling reason for a ban. Oshima sees it as a mistake the country can learn from while still improving nuclear technology, which he regards as one of the world's great inventions behind only alcohol and go, an Asian board game.

Emphasis mine.

Heroditas wrote: »

Care to break down either an industrial or domestic bill into its various constituents such as the wholesale price, TUOS, DUOS, capacity charges, electricity tax, imperfections, PSO etc?

It varys by country I would imagine, but Wikipedia quotes a figure of US$0.3625 per kw/hour for users in Germany, which at this time is a little over €0.26, whereas CaptnMidnight has often quoted a wholesale rate (which he alleges is the main important figure) of about 3 cents. A rather insane difference I am sure you will agree.

In reality of course, that figure if it is even real, is most likely an average, because it is not static and has gone as low as -€100 per kw/h. That's right, MINUS €100.

Jester252

Mullingar Sheila wrote: »

Hi All,
Jester you say that "Ireland has to have 42% of electricity produced by renewable"

Just to clarify, Ireland's legally binding target is 16% from all source, RES-T-H&-E.
Ireland itself (arbitrary) has put 40% in the RES-E bin (not 42%).

If greater saving in energy use were made in the 'other bins (deep insulation retrofit of homes for example) then this 40% could be arbitrarily reduced dramatically.

It is a complex area so happy to clear up any misunderstandings.

Sheila.

Not correct

First Ireland was required to submit a NREAP to the European Commission under EU Directive 2009/28/EC

Second Ireland had initial had set 40% as its RES-E target but was told by the EU that it could achieve 42.5% based off the input from the TSO (EirGrid.)

EirGrid’s demand projections where used as a basis for assessing the future grid infrastructure expansions and assessments of the generation adequacy of the system.

It is a complex area so I'm happy to clear up any misunderstandings.

Heroditas

SeanW wrote: »

It varys by country I would imagine, but Wikipedia quotes a figure of US$0.3625 per kw/hour for users in Germany, which at this time is a little over €0.26, whereas CaptnMidnight has often quoted a wholesale rate (which he alleges is the main important figure) of about 3 cents. A rather insane difference I am sure you will agree.

In reality of course, that figure if it is even real, is most likely an average, because it is not static and has gone as low as -€100 per kw/h. That's right, MINUS €100.

I'll post the Irish breakdown later and show that the whole subsidy breakdown. It's not such a cash cow or burden as many make out.
Up to my eyeballs with a tantrum throwing toddler all day

Greensleeves

Jester252 wrote: »

So care to provide a link?

What is sustainable to you?

If we are to follow Poland, do you what more wind and Biomass?

If we are to follow Czech Republic, do you what to continue using and importing fossil fuels?

Here is a good summary of the state of play in Europe at the moment:

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1230549/analysis-nuclear-scores-renewables-ec-proposals