Wind farms - ugly truths

fclauson

AngryHippie

Wouldn't the easiest way to tackle all of the problems listed be to improve energy storage capacity (Pumped storage, thermal storage etc.) so that it can become the primary infrastructure ? Rather than throwing it in the too hard pile ?

Energy demands are only going one way, and Energy supply is getting pulled the other.....

Cookie_Monster

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

bur

Who could argue with that font?

jca

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

Free for who? Not the consumer anyway. The "for a while" part of your post proves the op's point....

ted1

AngryHippie wrote: »

Wouldn't the easiest way to tackle all of the problems listed be to improve energy storage capacity (Pumped storage, thermal storage etc.) so that it can become the primary infrastructure ? Rather than throwing it in the too hard pile ?

Energy demands are only going one way, and Energy supply is getting pulled the other.....

So because the mass marketed RES is so inadequate in meeting our baseload or general energy needs,
we have to spend a fortune developing other RES to meet up its shortfall.
so we'll end up with even dearer electricity.

ted1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

any source to back that up?

what happens this week when the wind is not blowing? That's right they source it from fossil plants. but the fossil plant wasn't working last week because the wind was free.

was the fossil plant cycling last week, shut down, or idling away?

surely the fossil plant had to pay bills last week that can only be recovered this week so the costs goes up.

so the net result is the same AUP. emissions will probably remain static due to baseload plants and spinning reserve operating at low efficiency

TimeToShine

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

Germany are constraining the synchronous grid in continental Europe because of what you think is free wind energy. This "free" energy you speak of was paid for by bordering countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic who had to ramp down power stations to accommodate this influx of power. The supergrid simply cannot accomodate such an unpredictable source of energy without someone paying for it. Energy constraints are extremely inefficient and costly to the grid as a whole, as can be seen in the case of continental Europe - a direct result of wind energy. Of course if you cherry pick data from one country it will look favourable.

The Germans are under pressure because they can't be seen going back on their renewable energy promises. This green image its politicians are selling to the people has manifested itself as an integral part of their electricity supply. Constraining their wind energy is, synergy wise, the best option for all involved but it won't happen.

fclauson

AngryHippie wrote: »

..

Energy demands are only going one way

Interestingly no - electrical demand has dropped in Ireland

read the attached report

KEY FINDINGS:

• Including the East West interconnector, Ireland's back-up capacity increased by 21% since 2006. This is despite falling demand. For every 1MW of wind, 1MW of back up conventional (dispatchable) generation was built.

• An additional 1,200 MW (at least) of fossil fuel/dispatchable plant is required to back-up the amount of additional wind farms required to meet the renewable targets - that's equivalent to a plant 1 and a half times the size of Moneypoint.

• Reducing demand for electricity in Ireland is crucial to reaching renewable targets. Irish govt are in precarious situation whereby they have to encourage growth and resulting increased electricity and at the same time encourage less electricity use.

• Grid25 needed to accommodate extra wind and back-up capacity to keep the system secure. Eirgrid admit this will have potential environmental effects.

• Capacity payments have increased and will increase more to keep back-up generators viable. All paid for by you and me.

• No justification given for the surplus of generation supply. Ireland still dependent on EWIC despite this surplus and reduced demand.

• Tarbert heavy fuel oil plant, one of the most polluting plants in Ireland, was due to close last year but will now stay open until after 2020. In other words, it's (paradoxically) crucial to meeting our renewable targets.

• Due to increasing wind penetration, back-up plant has been forced to cycle frequently, increasing the risk of unexpected outages. So we have a crazy situation whereby additional back-up plant is required to back-up existing back-up which accounts for the surplus of generation supply.

ted1

AngryHippie wrote: »

Wouldn't the easiest way to tackle all of the problems listed be to improve energy storage capacity (Pumped storage, thermal storage etc.) so that it can become the primary infrastructure ? Rather than throwing it in the too hard pile ?

Energy demands are only going one way, and Energy supply is getting pulled the other.....

Energy demands have decreased during the recession and also machines are getting more energy efficient and people are managing it better.

Macha

What a load of complete nonsense.

deegs

What a load of balony.... Comparing the efficiency of wind power (itself a relatively new tech) with other older established energy is like comparing a model t to a Ferrari.

Wind energy in conjunction with other energy types has huge potential. Wind energy is not as good as it gets right now, but in in a few years time people will look back on arguments such as above and wonder how people could be so naive.
Kinda how some view the people who said climate change was a myth...

jinghong

deegs wrote: »

What a load of balony.... Comparing the efficiency of wind power (itself a relatively new tech) with other older established energy is like comparing a model t to a Ferrari.

Wind energy in conjunction with other energy types has huge potential. Wind energy is not as good as it gets right now, but in in a few years time people will look back on arguments such as above and wonder how people could be so naive.
Kinda how some view the people who said climate change was a myth...

Can you address the specific issues posed, rather than making a fact free rant - I'm actually interested in hearing the opposing view point - if there is factual content behind it

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

What a load of complete nonsense.

Kindly elaborate - to which of the many posts are you referring

fclauson

deegs wrote: »

Wind energy in conjunction with other energy types has huge potential.

May be - but if it don't blow there is no energy and if it don't blow for a number of days any amount of stored energy will become depleted.

So you will always need some for of back up
and that backup MUST be able to service the full demand of the grid

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

Kindly elaborate - to which of the many posts are you referring

The first one. I don't even know where to begin correcting it.

deegs

jinghong wrote: »

Can you address the specific issues posed, rather than making a fact free rant - I'm actually interested in hearing the opposing view point - if there is factual content behind it

Sorry, I didn't really see any 'issues', per se, posted...
Just some balony in the first post, and generally, any other posts thereafter supporting that opinion...

I'd be happy to give you factual content, you give me yours first other than a jpg

deegs

fclauson wrote: »

May be - but if it don't blow there is no energy and if it don't blow for a number of days any amount of stored energy will become depleted.

So you will always need some for of back up
and that backup MUST be able to service the full demand of the grid

That is such a simplistic viewpoint....

Do you know that the feasibility planning for any new farm is a long and difficult process. Looking purely at wind potential, countless met weather and wind mapping data is analysed as well as wind logging for a period of years to determine potential. Genetic algorithms can then be run to analyse what positioning each turbine needs to limit the wake effects and efficiencies with regard to the other turbines. This is all run for seperate turbine manufacturers and placements given several other constraints like access, land ownership.

Software in some cases can run for months non stop 24 hours a day and have a team of engineers working on it for dozens of sites. Most will be rejected. At the end of the day a variable is fed out that considers all factors (wind potential being one).

Bottom line if it is feasible to set up they will, if they won't they won't. Wind energy is a big business.... Ain't no one gonna invest tens of millions for setup and hundreds of thousands annually on o&m if they haven't considered the days it "don't blow" as you put it.........

Seriously.... Come on!

And that's just wind, exact same goes for solar, marine, fossil fuel etc. it's simply a numbers game that needs to be balanced.

ted1

deegs wrote: »

That is such a simplistic viewpoint....

Do you know that the feasibility planning for any new farm is a long and difficult process. Looking purely at wind potential, countless met weather and wind mapping data is analysed as well as wind logging for a period of years to determine potential. Genetic algorithms can then be run to analyse what positioning each turbine needs to limit the wake effects and efficiencies with regard to the other turbines. This is all run for seperate turbine manufacturers and placements given several other constraints like access, land ownership.

Software in some cases can run for months non stop 24 hours a day and have a team of engineers working on it for dozens of sites. Most will be rejected. At the end of the day a variable is fed out that considers all factors (wind potential being one).

Bottom line if it is feasible to set up they will, if they won't they won't. Wind energy is a big business.... Ain't no one gonna invest tens of millions for setup and hundreds of thousands annually on o&m if they haven't considered the days it "don't blow" as you put it.........

Seriously.... Come on!

And that's just wind, exact same goes for solar, marine, fossil fuel etc. it's simply a numbers game that needs to be balanced.

A wind farm operator making a profit isn't what this thread is about. Of course they make a profit and there's plenty of tax schemes along with REFIT to ensure that they do.

However ignoring the profit the operator makes they are not the answer to out energy needs. They can not provide baseload. And require alternative supplies who will require A CMP or similar

fclauson

There are three threads to this discussion:

• Technical design
• Financial model for the operator
• Benefit to the grid and end user

For the technical design I agree there are some very clever people who can build the very best model for getting the max out of a specific wind farm site.

The financial model is interesting - (see a posts by Warren Buffet) - if you have a model where for a specific up front investment you will receive a guaranteed return for 20 years - regardless if your end product is needed & you are given tax incentives and paybacks guarantees (all of which are written into law) - then a providing the model pays who would not invest.

Which leaves the benefit to the grid and end user. Take the past few days - for around 3000Mgw installed capacity we are getting sub 3% of output due to low winds. To make up this deficit Eirgrid/ESB Networks have had to generate more and import more (the imported being a mix of fossil and nuclear). And all the while billions of euro of hardware is sat stuck into the sky doing practically nothing. When the wind does pick up in a day or two the grid operator (bound by legislation) will have to take that "renewable" power, run down there fossil plants and reduce the import of foreign electricity. They have to continuously juggle this mix based on the weather which as I put in my opening post puts considerable inefficiencies into the network and most importantly considerable cost to the end user. Check your bill for public service obligation which is a fee to go to "renewable" providers to have that kit stuck there which only runs when the wind blows.

deegs

ted1 wrote: »

A wind farm operator making a profit isn't what this thread is about. Of course they make a profit and there's plenty of tax schemes along with REFIT to ensure that they do.

However ignoring the profit the operator makes they are not the answer to out energy needs. They can not provide baseload. And require alternative supplies who will require A CMP or similar

My points had nothing to do with profit. It's about feasibility. It it consumes more to extract than the power converted then it is not feasible. It if consumes less to extract then it is feasible. This includes non windy days, due to averaging. And note the consumption model used may not be exclusively financial...
If it is then feasible then operators can see what they can add on to it to make a profit... But it must be feasible first. Plenty of feasible site in Ireland that are not used for other reasons, that have not even been presented to corporate entities.

Anyway This is going off topic. Main point... Op image is nonsense.

fclauson

deegs wrote: »

My points had nothing to do with profit. It's about feasibility. It it consumes more to extract than the power converted then it is not feasible. It if consumes less to extract then it is feasible. This includes non windy days, due to averaging. And note the consumption model used may not be exclusively financial...
If it is then feasible then operators can see what they can add on to it to make a profit... But it must be feasible first. Plenty of feasible site in Ireland that are not used for other reasons, that have not even been presented to corporate entities.

Anyway This is going off topic. Main point... Op image is nonsense.

Using your example - without subsidy wind farms do not "consume less than to extract" particularly as you need backup reserve for when they are not producing.

ford2600

fclauson wrote: »

Using your example - without subsidy wind farms do not "consume less than to extract" particularly as you need backup reserve for when they are not producing.

Ladies/Gents is this discussions really about order not energy?

We don't pay for energy, we pay for order; lights that work when we click a switch, heating that switches on when we want it etc.

Nuclear, modern fossil fuel fired plants etc are high order systems; they deliver xMW when and where you need it.

Wind is a low order system(unreliable supply) and to fit in to a modern economy needs a dispersed collection system with the inbuilt losses as per the 2nd Law with all the power conversions involved.

Modern economies need an ordered system, a discussion on wind is not an honest one without a discussion on the cost of increasing the order of energy supply to fit into a modern energy supply system.

A note on efficiency; generally throughout human evolution, since hunter gathers first put order on wilderness by becoming farmers we have, increased how efficiently we can order the world. However each increase in efficiency has come with an increase in gross energy; a modern car is much more efficient than a model T but there are infinitely more modern cars, hence higher gross energy usage, ditto led's etc.

Expecting we can power a modern economy by increasing efficiency and relying to any great degree on wind ignores the issues of order and the counter intuitive cost of increased efficiency.

ted1

deegs wrote: »

My points had nothing to do with profit. It's about feasibility. It it consumes more to extract than the power converted then it is not feasible. It if consumes less to extract then it is feasible. This includes non windy days, due to averaging. And note the consumption model used may not be exclusively financial...
If it is then feasible then operators can see what they can add on to it to make a profit... But it must be feasible first. Plenty of feasible site in Ireland that are not used for other reasons, that have not even been presented to corporate entities.

Anyway This is going off topic. Main point... Op image is nonsense.

your points have every thing to do with profit. That is why wind farms are put up. That is what the feasibility is to test for.
Eirgrid do not do a feasibility test the company proposing the wind farm do. So the feasibility is purely down to profit and zero to do with adding benefits to the grid our providing

The OP was not questioning their feasibility, hew was demonstrating how they do not do much to help with CO2 reduction and that they are often hyped as the answer to out climate issues, but are in fact really useless in reducing CO2

Grudaire

ted1 wrote: »

The OP was not questioning their feasibility, hew was demonstrating how they do not do much to help with CO2 reduction and that they are often hyped as the answer to out climate issues, but are in fact really useless in reducing CO2

That was the argument in the OP, but he didn't actually show that CO2 emissions aren't being cut as a result of the windfarm policy.

If there are figures to back up that argument I'd be interested in seeing them?

fclauson

The SEAI have been preparing a report on this - their current report ignores the spinning reserve which is the elephant in the room

The report has been promised for a month and I'll post it when available

Eirgrid publish a CO2 intensity number and a total Co2 but it explicitly excludes co2 generated by dispatchable but un committed reserve (ie the spare capacity which can get switched in at a moments notice)

There are a number of parties who have asked for these numbers but got no reply

Also they asked for - for a specific demand number - where wind is say 15% - which other plants are providing the deficit and more importantly what plants have actually been spun down

From memory to spin up money point coal fired takes 6hrs to 9 hrs plus they cannot let it go cold because that would involve a boiler service/re bricking

If it's not spun back to a significant extent when there is excess wind then there is no co2 saving but there is a massive cost overhead

ted1

Don't forget the mox mix and sox increase

deegs

ted1 wrote: »

The OP was not questioning their feasibility, hew was demonstrating how they do not do much to help with CO2 reduction and that they are often hyped as the answer to out climate issues, but are in fact really useless in reducing CO2

The op was an image with some lines that read more like a poem than scientific facts.
That ain't a demonstration....

I'd love to see your peer reviewed stats about how they are 'useless' at reducing co2
I know you didn't start the thread but the op is not very forthcoming with evidence.....

ted1

Page 25 on is an interesting read
http://www.powertrans.com.au/UserFiles//file//PDFs//EG-4-13.pdf

As is this
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/hughes-windpower.pdf

deegs

ted1 wrote: »

Page 25 on is an interesting read
http://www.powertrans.com.au/UserFiles//file//PDFs//EG-4-13.pdf

As is this
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/hughes-windpower.pdf

A report generated by a commercial entity with a clear bias towards the content is not really what one might call "peer reviewed" or unbiased....(I would even be wary to call it scientific!) rather its most likely director reviewed.... hence, all but useless...

Try sources that are at least beyond disrepute, for example:

Brekken, T. K., Yokochi, A., Von Jouanne, A., Yen, Z. Z., Hapke, H. M., & Halamay, D. A. (2011). Optimal energy storage sizing and control for wind power applications. Sustainable Energy, IEEE Transactions on, 2(1), 69-77.

Foley, A. M., Leahy, P. G., Marvuglia, A., & McKeogh, E. J. (2012). Current methods and advances in forecasting of wind power generation. Renewable Energy, 37(1), 1-8

Vidyanandan, K. V., & Senroy, N. (2013). Primary frequency regulation by deloaded wind turbines using variable droop. Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 28(2), 837-846.

All these have had experts conduct analysis and experts perform a stringent blind review process to determine quality and accuracy.

Hence, my position that the OP is balony!

Bigus

I'll take my irish wind power the next time there's an oil crisis , even if it's only sporadic , hopefully there'll be enough electric cars and bikes and vans around to keep us mobile too, unlike the last 73 crisis or next war.

fclauson

Suggest you read http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/EPSSU_Publications/Renewable-Energy-in-Ireland-2012.pdf

page 49 - the paragraph

The limitations and caveats associated with this methodology include that it ignores plant used to meet the associated reserve requirements of renewables. These open cycle plants will typically have lower efficiency and generate increased CO2 and NOx emissions compared with combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT). The method does not account for such cycling effects ..... .

So cycling is ignored from this report (which is the elephant in the corner)- they are working on a new report but its not available as yet

Additionally you might like to read the attached which positions that SEAI is not taking account of all the factors

finally - you might like to read http://www.eirgrid.com/media/2012_Curtailment_Report.pdf (the 2013 is being created at the moment) to see how much non wind curtailment has to happen to accomodate wind - and the impact wind is having on the network. Basically they are having to reconfig the network (Grid25) to allow for the wind because wind causes operational difficulties across the network and leads to network instability.

dathi

So cycling is ignored from this report (which is the elephant in the corner)- they are working on a new report but its not available .

would mass uptake of a solar pv array similar to the one you have installed not also cause cycling

deegs

SEAI-government/eu funded initiative = biased
http://www.seai.ie/About_Us/SEAI-and-EU-ERDF-Funding/

eirgrid - private business = biased
http://www.eirgrid.com/aboutus/

Your attachment is from a chemical engineer called Pat Swords. I tried to find his report in some on-line repositories but could not, so I can only assumed it is unpublished (and therefore not peer reviewed) or refused publication due to one of many issues.
Having looked through it I can see it is not very well grounded and not many relevant works are cited.
A quick google shows this individual has been complaining to the irish government and EU for over5 years about wind energy...
That report is 100% biased

You see, if you come on here an say this is your opinion and it is the shared opinion of several commercially entities and individuals that are clearly biased than I would not object at all.
But when you come on here stating "facts" when they clearly (to any sane person are not!) then you will run up against opposition.

For example, any Irish government body report will have cost a fortune and go out of their way to hide any inepitute on their behalf... same with EU report. Similiarly, the irish government could cause a kerfuffle with Irish water and bring out a report on irish water in 5 years time saying the cost of water is average. You'd be daft to believe it....
But if you base you opinions on http://ascelibrary.org/journal/jwrmd5 or http://link.springer.com/journal/11269 what you would have would be facts... Cold hard scientific facts that could not be refuted by an online community

To sum up:
Do some real research on wind power and be heard or do some armchair research and spend your time going in circles trying to defend it!

fclauson

deegs wrote: »

...Cold hard scientific facts that could not be refuted by an online community
..

Wish I could find some - I have had to form my opinion from documents provided by bodies who are supposed to be doing that research for me !!!!

Any pointers welcome

deegs

fclauson wrote: »

Wish I could find some - I have had to form my opinion from documents provided by bodies who are supposed to be doing that research for me !!!!

Any pointers welcome

I would start by not using a prefix of "Science" when you post about things that have no scientific support...

Second, there are plenty of places where you can get that kind of research (that support your opinion or refute it!)
Start with google scholar. Sometimes that research is locked within a library where you have to pay for it, but sometimes, google finds a free version.

Third, if you find research and cannot get a copy/dont want to pay, email the author. 9/10 they are more than happy for 'anyone' to read their work.

Finally, don't rely on the 'bodies' they have their uses, they fund a lot of research, but they take that research, put their spin on it and present their version to you. not too bad until each body try's to outdo the other (especially government bodies) and you just get confused and don't know what to believe... just look at all the crap coming through the door for elections...

Besides, I don't think its that you cannot find the facts (they exist) its just your questions are too general.

Spend a bit of time looking at google scholar, let us know what you find.

fclauson

So here is the challenge - 3 days of very low wind - so to cover this not a single old thermal unit can be decommissioned - that's the reason for my original post.

And if you compare predicted wind vs actual wind - the thermal plants have to work with this guess work

deegs

Science daily is a good place to look also.....
This might interest you?
"Managing renewable energy intelligently" Sent from the ScienceDaily iOS app http://m.sciencedaily.com/4.0/article/43711/94931/95761990?tmpl=deeplink.html

Follow the link at the end to see more relevant work from that institute.

AngryHippie

ted1 wrote: »

Energy demands have decreased during the recession and also machines are getting more energy efficient and people are managing it better.

That is a very Ireland specific phenomenon. The drop in Economic activity has resulted in people being a lot more careful about their energy consumption, and trimming it down to the bare essentials to avoid getting billed for excess. This will happen everywhere as the cost of generation continues to increase. The gross consumption will continue to rise with the population.

Population up => Energy consumption up. Basic stuff.

fclauson

They may never come back

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-householders-pay-among-the-highest-prices-in-europe-for-electricity-30293043.html

fclauson

Found this - which might be interesting - have not had time to full read it

http://www.eurelectric.org/media/61388/flexibility_report_final-2011-102-0003-01-e.pdf

Grudaire

fclauson wrote: »

They may never come back

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-householders-pay-among-the-highest-prices-in-europe-for-electricity-30293043.html

That's an interesting article, didn't know prices had risen so much over the last year.

Given the thread that we're in I assume you're implying that this is a result of the wind farms? But there's no evidence to suggest that is there?

fclauson

dathi wrote: »

would mass uptake of a solar pv array similar to the one you have installed not also cause cycling

yes - probably

fclauson

Grudaire wrote: »

That's an interesting article, didn't know prices had risen so much over the last year.

Given the thread that we're in I assume you're implying that this is a result of the wind farms? But there's no evidence to suggest that is there?

The fact we are doubling up on infrastructure is where some of the cost is coming from

for every turbine you have to have a matching backup generator
plus the turbines are being subsidised (check out the PSO levy on your bill)

deegs

fclauson wrote: »

The fact we are doubling up on infrastructure is where some of the cost is coming from

for every turbine you have to have a matching backup generator
plus the turbines are being subsidised (check out the PSO levy on your bill)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
Don't suppose you have and scientific papers supporting anything of the above?

I think you are confusing the technology and the operator.
Energy price hikes are more likely due to rising profits than infrastructure...
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/profits-at-esb-rise-by-80-million-as-squeeze-on-costs-continues-1.1725185

Otherwise how can energy be cheaper in other countries?

The link I posted earlier was from my ipad, and it didnt link correctly.
Here is the article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140325094814.htm its about research from http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2014/march/managing-renewables-intelligently.html

But there are many more examples on science daily, and they are all based on independent peer reviewed research (not government or biased body spun research):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140102113124.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140318093403.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140219205102.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131203124532.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140320140854.htm

Science daily is good as it breaks down research for the layman, you can still get to the real research/papers via sciencedaily and the likes, by following the source at the bottom.

deegs

AngryHippie wrote: »

That is a very Ireland specific phenomenon. The drop in Economic activity has resulted in people being a lot more careful about their energy consumption, and trimming it down to the bare essentials to avoid getting billed for excess. This will happen everywhere as the cost of generation continues to increase. The gross consumption will continue to rise with the population.

Population up => Energy consumption up. Basic stuff.

Consumption will, most likely, continue to rise.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140402133951.htm

H3llR4iser

AngryHippie wrote: »

That is a very Ireland specific phenomenon. The drop in Economic activity has resulted in people being a lot more careful about their energy consumption, and trimming it down to the bare essentials to avoid getting billed for excess. This will happen everywhere as the cost of generation continues to increase. The gross consumption will continue to rise with the population.

Population up => Energy consumption up. Basic stuff.

And not only that - the way power is used in Ireland is extremely inefficient: Most households still fully rely on incandescent light bulbs, a lot of properties still have electric heating, electric showers and the awful immersion tanks, and in many cases we are talking about archaic implementations of these. Even without a recession, energy use would still go down as houses and businesses get updated to more energy-efficient technologies.

fclauson

H3llR4iser wrote: »

And not only that - the way power is used in Ireland is extremely inefficient: Most households still fully rely on incandescent light bulbs, a lot of properties still have electric heating, electric showers and the awful immersion tanks, and in many cases we are talking about archaic implementations of these. Even without a recession, energy use would still go down as houses and businesses get updated to more energy-efficient technologies.

Totally agree - demand side management should be a focus as it has many benefits including leaving more spending money in the economy, less fuel "poverty", and just nicer homes to live in

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

So here is the challenge - 3 days of very low wind - so to cover this not a single old thermal unit can be decommissioned - that's the reason for my original post.

Because Ireland can't import electricity from abroad?

fclauson wrote: »

And if you compare predicted wind vs actual wind...

They tally up pretty damn well.

fclauson wrote: »

for every turbine you have to have a matching backup generator

That really depends on your network topology.

The problem with your analysis is it is restricted to the local level. In an age when technologies such as HVDC transmission are being rolled out, we need to move away from such small-scale thinking.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

Because Ireland can't import electricity from abroad?

not if there is a lack of wind across swathes of Europe (which has happened) and why should we "dump" our carbon emission elsewhere !!

They tally up pretty damn well.

not when you are talking about a couple of hour ramp time for a generator - thats why they keep them spinning (and thus generating wasteful electricity)

That really depends on your network topology.

The problem with your analysis is it is restricted to the local level. In an age when technologies such as HVDC transmission are being rolled out, we need to move away from such small-scale thinking.

and that is the whole pylon argument

deegs

U state the first two points as fact, you are incorrect, or do u have some evidence?

And how does you comment about pylons relate to back up generator for turbines?

Frankly I'm amazed at your ability to continue this thread by avoiding and legitimate facts and dancing around straightforward questions and issues?
It's an impressive ability