Wind farms - ugly truths

Markcheese

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The storm of objections has pretty much been ridden enough to ensure Ireland meets its targets.

It can be done, but for such a humongous step to be taken, information and communication need to be honest and comprehensive.
People are not idiots.

If there is a possibility that one nuclear station may make a massive difference to the lives of people in Ireland, and everyone is adequately informed, I think people will give it due consideration.

I hate the way it is always established as a given in Ireland that people are idiots who will reject any new proposition outright, or who will not have the capacity to understand a complex situation.

It happens in the medical system all the time, it happens in the case of abortion at the moment, gay marriage, you name it.
Fob off people with misinformation or lack of information, let a select few take decisions for them, much easier. It drives me mad.

So you'd be alright with a reactor in your area ? And the vast number of new transmission lines (pylons) that brings-
Fair enough, most people cant even stand the look of a few wind turbines !
Apart from the economics of nuclear power-

Old diesel

Markcheese wrote: »

So you'd be alright with a reactor in your area ? And the vast number of new transmission lines (pylons) that brings-
Fair enough, most people cant even stand the look of a few wind turbines !
Apart from the economics of nuclear power-

I think Mountainsandhs point is more about communicating - and engaging with people - and treating them like adults in this process - rather then saying he/she is pro Nuclear.

The point being made I think is that if people could see something will make a positive difference being made - WITH PROPER information - they are more likely to support it.

As for "a few turbines" - if it really was just a few - there wouldn't be as much opposition - but it comes back again to a lack of engagement.

Really the fact we plan (we being the country rather then people on this thread) energy especially wind in isolation is the real big issue here.

This planning in isolation is im beginning to realise is a far bigger problem then any individual wind turbine ever could be.

If people could see a future that works as best it can for them - its easier to embrace.

If you just see a massive big problem 500 metres away - we have an issue

And again - im trying to be constructive here by thinking of wider planning of things together.

I know im not a lover of wind - heck - ive written LOTS of posts criticising wind projects so its pointless pretending ive had a eureka moment

But its the planning of a number of different crucial issues together that's vital

Mountainsandh

Markcheese wrote: »

So you'd be alright with a reactor in your area ? And the vast number of new transmission lines (pylons) that brings-
Fair enough, most people cant even stand the look of a few wind turbines !
Apart from the economics of nuclear power-

I posted in another thread a photo taken from my mother's flat, back in France, with a view onto the Cruas power plant.
No, I wouldn't have a problem living near one.

If one power plant in one spot meant that the rest of the countryside is spared from scaring with turbines etc... and that people are getting reliable power, for cheap, then yes, I think it would be worth me sacrificing my surroundings to a reasonable extent.

It is true there are many high tension lines coming with a plant, but these would be present with dozens of wind farms, smaller scale ones, but in a greater number.

My point is that if you explain to someone that there is a possibility their immediate surroundings might be spoiled, but everyone benefits from it to a great extent, they will probably accept the inconvenience.

With wind turbines, the inconvenience and visual pollution are high, and there needs to be many such outfits for it to be meaningful, while the benefit goes mostly to one person.

Greater and more frequent inconvenience, for the benefit mostly of one developer.

The inconvenience of one power plant would benefit the entire population.
It's a much stronger argument in my opinion.

Markcheese

I get your point about communication and benefit to society -(I'm not convinced about economic benefits of wind turbines-but I wonder about people's knee jerk reaction to change )
I reckon most Irish people would be ok with nuclear power and it's benefits as long as it's no where their patch !
I have no major drama with large scale power projects -there's probably power generation in my parish than anywhere else in the country - and while I can't see a whole power station from my window , me and thousands of others have a view of some of it -(and most of this capacity was built without major objection in the last few years )
I've actually heard more concern voiced about 3 wind turbines miles away than about 2 huge gas turbines in the middle of the parish -

Mountainsandh

There must be some suitable site in Ireland that would cause the least objections. Ireland is tiny, but there are still fairly unpopulated spots. Look at the Cruas one, it's across the river, on a bank that is less populated, on the site of an old quarry (i think they still quarry some bit). The closest people are those on the opposite bank.
It's big when you pass by it, but not really any more than other types of infrastructure like refineries, etc...

My sister lives around 8/9 km as the crow flies, don't think it's an issue for anyone around there, yes there is a risk but they don't think about it all the time. There are rarely any scares, technical glitches or accidents the odd time, but nothing that warrants general worry.

They did have a drone flying over the station recently, along with lots other power plants in France... That's a bit more worrisome, the terror threat is an issue in France alright.
Less of that type of concern here thankfully.

Downstream, to put the extra heat/steam to good use, they built a crocodile farm, great spot, warm, humid and snug courtesy of the PP. And the crocs don't glow, I can vouch for that.

Old diesel

The difficulty is that with turbines is that people perceive it to be an issue when its near their homes.

My concern is that the response - is coming back in a way that's interpreted as "tough luck" - and I think the response would be much improved if we have this sort of approach.

New approach to planning

1) People have concerns on health grounds - having their sleep disturbed - so lets move away from whose right and wrong - its not helpful - we end up going around in circles. Instead if we are promising that sleep disturbance won't be an issue with the project - focus would be better applied to ensuring the project doesn't cause sleep disturbance. All that's being done is ensuring we deliver on our promises.

2) lets focus on OUTCOMES positively - so lets have a country that's kind to the planet - but lets create an inclusive society that's GOOD TO LIVE IN.

The inclusive society should mean that we are ALL in this together - and NO ONE is abandoned.

Good to live in SHOULD be for EVERYONE - no one should be excluded from good to live in simply because your house was built in the wrong place 10/20 years ago.

I suppose the point I want to make is that its not just about energy - but so many things need to be planned together for the best outcomes for country, people AND THE PLANET.

Jim Martin

Interesting item on ClareFM about bio-mass generation at Moneypoint!

http://www.clare.fm/news

Markcheese

I'd have as many questions about the economics of importing bio-mass pellets and burning them in moneypoint as I do about the economics of windturbines-
And if it is a good idea it doesn't exclude windturbines anyway ....

fclauson

Its been a while since I posted - but lets look at the banana situation we have.

No thermal capacity has been decommissioned and Eden Derry Peat plant (the most polluting source of power generation) has asked for an extension of its life span for the second or third time. This is a very slow reacting plant which take a good while to ramp so has to be used for base load.

take a look at the attached - due to low wind Ireland had to put its thermal plants into action early in the morning and export the excess capacity (due to ramp times etc) due to the very low wind situation. The electricity we imported for most of the day probably came from either Nuclear/Coal/Gas


My original post about ugly truths is still true - no decommission of plant while millions are spent on wind turbines which are highly intermittent.

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

My original post about ugly truths is still true - no decommission of plant while millions are spent on wind turbines which are highly intermittent.

Thanks for posting how accurate wind predictions are and how we have plenty of backup.

Perhaps next time you could post this http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/generation?scroll=fuel

Renewables accounted for 19.59% of our electricity this month. Most of that would otherwise have to be imported via the interconnector or as fossil fuel.

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thanks for posting how accurate wind predictions are and how we have plenty of backup.

Renewable accounted for 19.59% of our electricity this month. Most of that would otherwise have to be imported via the interconnector or as fossil fuel.

Any idea if pumped is counted as renewable in the Eirgrid number ?

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thanks for posting how accurate wind predictions are and how we have plenty of backup.

Perhaps next time you could post this http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/generation?scroll=fuel

Renewables accounted for 19.59% of our electricity this month. Most of that would otherwise have to be imported via the interconnector or as fossil fuel.

That power is still on standby so that statement holds very little water.

Still I'm sure the wind pushers were delighted with this news yesterday which will further escalate the cost to consumers of the car crash that is our energy policy


http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/energy-bills-could-soar-as-esb-and-eirgrid-ask-for-billions-more-31472665.html

Only Germany and Denmark now ahead of us in terms of retail power costs across the EU thanx to wind developer lead energy policies.

https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/eu-electricity-cost-vs-renewables.jpg

PS: Some tool from the CER on Newstalk yesterday struggling to explain why Irish power users bills have seen little or no benefit from sharply declining oil and gas prices. Like Eirgrid, another useless government quango that needs culling

fclauson

Birdnuts

thanks - I just re-read my original post - this is nothing to do with predicting wind and having lots of backup - its about the madness of doubling the infrastructure and massively increasing the expense for practically no benefit

most of the profits (i.e. money flowing out the country) still happens as most are owned off shore so the argument we are not importing expensive fuel also falls a bit flat

but heck - they give those who don't understand the maths or the science that warm fuzzy feeling "they are green"

quentingargan

It is perhaps unfortunate that we have such reliance on wind as a renewable. If this was mixed with more solar, there would be a synergy which should see some mothballing of the higher CO2 stations.

Other measures on the demand side management would also help. Smart meters and smart devices such as dishwashers and washing machines that come on when the wholesale price is low would also need to be part of a strategy.

Wind turbines alone will not enable us to mothball stations, but you they reduce the run time of other fossil fuel stations. A mix of solar and wind would have a far greater effect.

The possibilities of solar are beginning to be recognised, but unfortunately, to my mind, there are lobbies trying to push this in the direction of solar parks rather than the model of industrial / domestic rooftop and self-consumption. Utility companies would like this because their business model is running a grid and producing power at one end to sell at the other. Self consumption must be anathema to them. But solar parks to my mind are a totally unnecessary blight on the landscape. There's a thread on that here.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

That power is still on standby so that statement holds very little water.

Are you suggesting that the fossil fuels that would have been required to produce the ~20% of electricity produced by renewables were consumed by generators on standby? Because that’s patent nonsense.

fclauson

Its worth reading

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/backup-reserve-levels-to-be-increased.html

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the fossil fuels that would have been required to produce the ~20% of electricity produced by renewables were consumed by generators on standby? Because that’s patent nonsense.

the maths is not 1 to 1 as wind is not dispatchable - the questions is what is the ratio and many of the figures provided are very opaque to say the least

Normally ESB have to have the equivalent of the largest generator in the grid as standby in any event - in addition they have to have standby for the fluctuation of wind but I do not know how much this has to be - so yes some of that 20% has to be covered by standby

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

the maths is not 1 to 1...

I know it's not - nobody has said that it is. No system is 100% efficient.

However, I have been posting on this forum for several years now and every single time someone makes reference to the amount of fossil fuels saved as a result of generating electricity with renewables, someone invariably chimes in with "yeah but something, something spinning reserve something, something".

I'm still waiting for someone to actually demonstrate that the level of fuel required to keep spinning reserve operational is significant relative to the savings made through wind generation. So, for now, I will continue to believe Eirgrid's figures on CO2 intensity, which show a significant drop during periods of high wind generation.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

I know it's not - nobody has said that it is. No system is 100% efficient.

However, I have been posting on this forum for several years now and every single time someone makes reference to the amount of fossil fuels saved as a result of generating electricity with renewables, someone invariably chimes in with "yeah but something, something spinning reserve something, something".

I'm still waiting for someone to actually demonstrate that the level of fuel required to keep spinning reserve operational is significant relative to the savings made through wind generation. So, for now, I will continue to believe Eirgrid's figures on CO2 intensity, which show a significant drop during periods of high wind generation.

I thought better of you - spinning reserve has to be kept at a stage that if its suddenly hit with a massive load it does not falter. That was certainly the case when something like Moneypoint at 450Mw could drop off line without notice - the spinning reserve had to cover the sudden drop with out missing much (sub second) a heart beat.

For wind I have failed to find much info - obviously the good Lord does not suddenly stop all wind in one go so they have to work on a % of the predictive model (i.e. say predictions from wind is 100 with a margin of error in the model of 10% then 10+ would be the spinning reserve requirement in case the 10% margin manifested itself)

And I suspect the margin varies based on what type of weather system is about i.e. frontal weather vs high pressure etc

What is not clear is what margin is used by the ESB?

But back to my original post - with limited interconneciton Ireland has to maintain all of its dispatchable plant for days like earlier this year when there was 16Mw from the entire Irish wind fleet.

The question is where is the point of economics of renewable vs other technologies vs reduction in demand (as I have said before we heat out house for €150/annum)

Wind alone is not the solution as Quentin mentions

fclauson

Take a read of http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034013/article

towards the bottom of the article - for two different generating regions of the US

We also simulated future grids with higher levels of wind capacity and estimated that for ERCOT each additional MW of installed wind capacity would require 0.16–0.30 MW of dispatchable capacity to correct day-ahead forecast errors depending on the accuracy of the forecasts (see figure 12). In MISO this range is 0.07 and 0.13 MW.

From this the dispachable required reserve for wind is between 0.07 and 0.3Mw per Mw of forcast wind

So in Ireland if these figures held true you would need on a 50% of plated capacity day (around 1200Mw for this calculation) between 84Mw and 360Mw of spinning reserve for the wind turbines - excluding what you would need to cover the larges generator on the grid (typically moneypoint at 450 or the interconnector )

I wounder what is actually used here in Ireland

Mountainsandh

quentingargan wrote: »

It is perhaps unfortunate that we have such reliance on wind as a renewable. If this was mixed with more solar, there would be a synergy which should see some mothballing of the higher CO2 stations.

Other measures on the demand side management would also help. Smart meters and smart devices such as dishwashers and washing machines that come on when the wholesale price is low would also need to be part of a strategy.

Wind turbines alone will not enable us to mothball stations, but you they reduce the run time of other fossil fuel stations. A mix of solar and wind would have a far greater effect.

The possibilities of solar are beginning to be recognised, but unfortunately, to my mind, there are lobbies trying to push this in the direction of solar parks rather than the model of industrial / domestic rooftop and self-consumption. Utility companies would like this because their business model is running a grid and producing power at one end to sell at the other. Self consumption must be anathema to them. But solar parks to my mind are a totally unnecessary blight on the landscape. There's a thread on that here.

I'm just back from France, where the Casino chain of supermarkets has installed PV on top of many car parks (awnings for shade !), and more panels on larger supermarkets' roofs.
On a cloudy sunshine day the car park section was producing more than 1190kW (at the moment I checked).
They are also making small changes within the shops, and every refrigerated section has doors , even cheese, yoghurts, ham...
They are hoping that overall they will save the equivalent of one shop's energy requirements yearly, and have a contract to sell energy to EDF for 20 years. In 2014 they had 70MW installed.
A very low impact on society way to help lower emissions.

The area where I was relies on hydro generated power, and wind farms, and incidentally I noticed a lot more pylons and lines than near Cruas. Could be just a perception though.

It's time to expand solar use in Ireland too.

fclauson

Solar does not work at night so it resolves none of the issue of providing back up.

Peak demand is often evening time - after dark in the winter

Worst case is during a cold high pressure system when there is low wind speeds too

quentingargan

fclauson wrote: »

Solar does not work at night so it resolves none of the issue of providing back up.

Peak demand is often evening time - after dark in the winter

Worst case is during a cold high pressure system when there is low wind speeds too

I think this is where demand side management could kick in. Electricity should cost far more between 5.00pm and 6.00pm during this peak. That would stop people using dishwashers, washing machines etc. At present, there is no difference in the price of electricity at 5.00pm or 11.00pm, and no incentive to reduce consumption during that peak.

Most consumers in Ireland don't even have day/night meters.

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

I thought better of you…

Ok?

fclauson wrote: »

… spinning reserve has to be kept at a stage that if its suddenly hit with a massive load it does not falter.

Yeah, I know what spinning reserve is, thanks.

fclauson wrote: »

Solar does not work at night…

Is that really a good reason not to invest in solar?

Jim Martin

fclauson wrote: »

I thought better of you - spinning reserve has to be kept at a stage that if its suddenly hit with a massive load it does not falter. That was certainly the case when something like Moneypoint at 450Mw could drop off line without notice - the spinning reserve had to cover the sudden drop with out missing much (sub second) a heart beat.

For wind I have failed to find much info - obviously the good Lord does not suddenly stop all wind in one go so they have to work on a % of the predictive model (i.e. say predictions from wind is 100 with a margin of error in the model of 10% then 10+ would be the spinning reserve requirement in case the 10% margin manifested itself)

And I suspect the margin varies based on what type of weather system is about i.e. frontal weather vs high pressure etc

What is not clear is what margin is used by the ESB?

But back to my original post - with limited interconneciton Ireland has to maintain all of its dispatchable plant for days like earlier this year when there was 16Mw from the entire Irish wind fleet.

The question is where is the point of economics of renewable vs other technologies vs reduction in demand (as I have said before we heat out house for €150/annum)

Wind alone is not the solution as Quentin mentions

Unless it's suddenly lost 450Mw into the ether (which with our weather I suppose is quite possible!), Moneypoint is 900Mw!

fclauson

Jim Martin wrote: »

Unless it's suddenly lost 450Mw into the ether (which with our weather I suppose is quite possible!), Moneypoint is 900Mw!

reading https://www.esb.ie/main/about-esb/power-stations-pdfs/ESB_MONEYPOINT_POWER_STATION.pdf?v=20141216

I might be wrong as its 305MW per unit

You also have to consider the interconnector which can reach 500Mw at peak

Dublin bay is 410 via a single unit
https://www.esb.ie/main/about-esb/power-stations-pdfs/ESB_DUBLIN_BAY_POWER_STATION.pdf?v=20140801

full list of units is here https://www.esb.ie/main/about-esb/thermal-stations.jsp

SeanW

Markcheese wrote: »

So you'd be alright with a reactor in your area ? And the vast number of new transmission lines (pylons) that brings-
Fair enough, most people cant even stand the look of a few wind turbines !

Which is more visually intrusive, from a distance?

Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant?


Or a wind farm on a mountain top?


The photographer of the wind farm was much further away than the photographer of Cattenom.

Don't forget also that wind farms take up much more land to produce a certain amount of power than nuclear power plants.


Don't forget also that you have to bring massive power transmission infrastructure to all the places you build wind farms, which would have to be pretty much everywhere.

If I had the choice to be 1 mile from a well built, well run nuclear power plant and surrounded by 250,000 acres of windmills (and the associated transmission lines) I'd take the nuclear every single day of the week and so would any sane person on the planet.

But please, regale us with tales of how nuclear plants are visually intrusive while renewables aren't :rolleyes:

Apart from the economics of nuclear power-

The French have the greatest proportion of non-fossil electricity in the world, and one of the cheapest electricity prices in Europe. Ireland now has the third most expensive electricity in Europe, behind other renewables leaders Germany and Denmark. We're also hopelessly dependent on gas, coal and peat.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out which model makes the most sense.

Eugene Norman

SeanW wrote: »

Which is more visually intrusive, from a distance?

Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant?


Or a wind farm on a mountain top?


The photographer of the wind farm was much further away than the photographer of Cattenom.

Don't forget also that wind farms take up much more land to produce a certain amount of power than nuclear power plants.


Don't forget also that you have to bring massive power transmission infrastructure to all the places you build wind farms, which would have to be pretty much everywhere.

If I had the choice to be 1 mile from a well built, well run nuclear power plant and surrounded by 250,000 acres of windmills (and the associated transmission lines) I'd take the nuclear every single day of the week and so would any sane person on the planet.

But please, regale us with tales of how nuclear plants are visually intrusive while renewables aren't :rolleyes:

The French have the greatest proportion of non-fossil electricity in the world, and one of the cheapest electricity prices in Europe. Ireland now has the third most expensive electricity in Europe, behind other renewables leaders Germany and Denmark. We're also hopelessly dependent on gas, coal and peat.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out which model makes the most sense.

The windfarms look beautiful. France has a huge nuclear industry.

And people are not really concerned with the beauty or not of nuclear plants.

SeanW

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The windfarms look beautiful. France has a huge nuclear industry.

Well, good for you, because as markcheese admitted, most people think windfarms look abominable.

And people are not really concerned with the beauty or not of nuclear plants.

No, but they definitely are with wind turbines, and that's important. Because by saying no to nuclear and yes to renewables, you're not only accepting massive instability (because the plants produce power ONLY when nature wants them to, full stop) but you're also rejecting a land take of hundreds of acres for nuclear power plants but embracing a land take of hundreds of thousands of acres for renewables.

That means wind farms everywhere. Again, this is all ignoring that they only produce when the wind is blowing and will need to be backed up by something else anyway.

doolox

Wind energy is not always available when it is needed. Power supply systems will have to build in a comprehensive system of power storage to accommodate time of calm or when the wind energy is not enough to meet immediate demand.

It is hard to know if existing forms of energy storage such as batteries will cause more CO2 emissions in their manufacture than simpler forms of demand reduction.