Wind farms - ugly truths

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

All you do is pedal the "wind is cheap" line while failing to explain why all the evidence to date across the EU,US etc. suggests otherwise.

What evidence is this? Any time anyone has produced any kind of cost estimate for wind, I have shown it’s actually pretty reasonable.

Birdnuts wrote: »

There is nothing stopping people like yourself who appear to believe in "wind", from buying your own wind turbine and attempting to meet your own power needs this way .Certainly no one could object to that - but I suggest you have a diesel generator on standby...

Or just remain connected to the grid.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you show me a wind forecast that accurately predicts the output from every wind farm in the country on the many gusty convective days across this Ireland which as I pointed out are a feature of the wind regime in this part of the world??.

Can you explain why a forecast with that level of spatio-temporal accuracy would be necessary?

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you explain why a forecast with that level of spatio-temporal accuracy would be necessary?

Especially on a grid where demand shoots up when everyone puts the kettle on after certain TV programs and which is obliged to regard to drops within 5 seconds.

TBH it's like the creationist arguments demanding yet more missing links, and even if provided there's the feeling they'd then want birth certs.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

I notice that a figure for these grid investments is conspicuous by its absence. He does cite a figure of €1.5 million per MW as being typical for new wind installations. If we assume a 1 MW installed capacity produces an average of 300 kW and it lasts for, say, 20 years, that gives a cost per kWh produced of about 2.85 c, which is pretty damn low.

But of course, the hidden costs!

Of course if you assume the wind farm can refurbished for another 20 years at 20% of initial price then it drops to 1.17c

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

Pray tell why not ?

A 60m high turbine is going to be founded on bedrock, and not in any way dependent on the highly reactive peat soil above.

There is no reason why a bog could not be restored in and around a windfarm.
roadways do pose a small issue, but that only takes some reasonably affordable conventional engineering to overcome.

You obviously don't get out on bogs much. If drainage is not maintained roads etc. subside and sink. Unless your suggesting the whole area should be stripped of peat down to the bedrock. Not much chance of a bog ever recovering from that!!

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You just don't get the concept of operating reserve do you ?

Anyway gusts average out over the interconnected area.

But for the sake of argument, lets imagine there is a gust blowing past a turbine on a wind farm. If the nearest turbine is 300m away and the gust gets there in the 5 seconds it takes for Operating Reserve to kick in then the weather front is moving at over 200Km/hr :eek:

Besides if it was a real problem the technology already exists to measure wind speed at every single turbine in the country and abroad. Then again exact demand can't be predicted that precisely either.


I've tried to explain that 6GW out of the 7GW of dispatchable plant we have installed may not be used on a windy summer night. And most of the remaining 1GW base load is steam anyway.

Gas here is used opportunistically. If the demand is there and the price is right gas gets used. Since 3GW of dispatchable capacity is spare even during peak time most winters, most of the time most of our gas plant is idle anyway. It appears I can't repeat this too often, most of the time most of the gas plant is idle or at best generating only a fraction of it's peak capacity.

It's exactly the same for wind.

Anyway.
We still need gas plant for peaking, the only difference is that with renewables there are fewer peaks.


*sign*
interconnector energy can't be used for frequency stability, and we export over it too. So like gas and wind it's down to prices vs. supply and demand and you can't use it for grid stability.

I could ask you the same meaningless question , how much gas plant has been replaced by the dispatchable interconnector ?

Or maybe , just maybe it's back to the whole price vs. supply and demand thing like all the other generators and as long as they are making money it's worth keeping them going.

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement you have in bold?? You also claim we have a lot of spare generation capacity - which we do. Yet you continually come on here and waffle on about why we should continue to expand wind capacity at any price.
The link below underlines some of the many issues that arise with such as idiotic approach

http://euanmearns.com/scotch-on-the-rocs/ - note that the bill for Scotlands wind energy(unlike here) is spread among the much bigger UK population plus they have much more Hydro than us

I 've also noted your deflection tactics regarding energy supply and interconnectors. Without interconnectors the likes of Denmark would spend half the year in darkness or are you claiming that grids without wind are inherently unstable?? Funny I don't remember the mass black outs before the wind subsidy farmers arrived

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

What evidence is this? Any time anyone has produced any kind of cost estimate for wind, I have shown it’s actually pretty reasonable.

Can you explain why a forecast with that level of spatio-temporal accuracy would be necessary?

Yeah your right - sure if we keep building wind farms eventually energy bills will become a thing of the past:rolleyes:

You rubbished suggestions there was hidden costs to wind on a grid beyond PSO type levies and ignored any technical links posted here regarding these issues that don't correspond to your "wind is cheap" mantra - a position that holds very little water when one looks at the retail cost of energy across Europe versus installed wind capacity. PS: Your buddy CM claimed that grid operators have access to wind forecasts days ahead of such detail that they can plan exact grid balance at any given moment in time. Do you stand over that claim given the enormous variation of wind regimes in time and space across this island??

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Especially on a grid where demand shoots up when everyone puts the kettle on after certain TV programs and which is obliged to regard to drops within 5 seconds.

TBH it's like the creationist arguments demanding yet more missing links, and even if provided there's the feeling they'd then want birth certs.

You claimed wind farm output was entirely predictable?? Can you provide the weather model basis for this given vast differences in time and space of the wind regimes at any given time across this island??. I'm sure as the smartest boy in the class you'll given me a detailed breakdown of the numerical weather prediction model that is used in this case and how it is powerfull enough to give that level of detail concerning every wind farm in the country.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

You claimed wind farm output was entirely predictable?? Can you provide the weather model basis for this given vast differences in time and space of the wind regimes at any given time across this island??. I'm sure as the smartest boy in the class you'll given me a detailed breakdown of the numerical weather prediction model that is used in this case and how it is powerfull enough to give that level of detail concerning every wind farm in the country.

I have never said that wind was entirely predictable nor that they have such detail that they can plan exact grid balance at any given moment in time. :rolleyes:

Actual measurements from every turbine in real time to map real time changes , yes that could be possible.


Go to http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/wind and you'll see the public predictions. They aren't precise. But they don't need to be because they are for planning and also because demand is somewhat unpredictable and we have reserves.

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

You obviously don't get out on bogs much. If drainage is not maintained roads etc. subside and sink. Unless your suggesting the whole area should be stripped of peat down to the bedrock. Not much chance of a bog ever recovering from that!!

Nice assumptions there.

You obviously don't know much about geotechnical engineering, civil engineering ground bearing pressures, consolidation or foundations. Conventional civil engineering can provide perfectly adequate limited access roads across bogs, and have done in one way shape or form for several thousand years add to that the fact that there are low bearing pressure machines that can perform most of the construction work concerned and you can easily design and execute a project with an acceptable environmental and ecological footprint. Again, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement you have in bold??

wtf ?

Seriously ??
you want me to explain why there might possibly be a lower demand for gas peaking plant when last winter 25% power was supplied by wind ? And as your lot like to point out wind strength varies, so for some of that time 50% of our power came from wind.

Yet you continually come on here and waffle on about why we should continue to expand wind capacity at any price.

Again with the misquoting. Where have I said at any price ? How many times have I shown how expensive nuclear is ?? If you want to rant on about hidden costs and subsidies and climate change then take a long look at fossil fuels.

The link below underlines some of the many issues that arise with such as idiotic approach http://euanmearns.com/scotch-on-the-rocs/

A large electricity surplus of about 15 TWh may be produced in 2020, worth about £2.5 billion at 17p / KWh. Oh dear Lord. It's not worth 17p. That's FOUR times the current UK wholesale price.

If you want to discuss economics then please at least have the decency to do a sanity check on the numbers before regurgitating blog posts.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

…you continually come on here and waffle on about why we should continue to expand wind capacity at any price.

Please show were anyone has proposed that wind generation capacity should be expanded at any price.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Without interconnectors the likes of Denmark would spend half the year in darkness…

What’s your point?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Yeah your right - sure if we keep building wind farms eventually energy bills will become a thing of the past:rolleyes:

You rubbished suggestions there was hidden costs to wind on a grid beyond PSO type levies and ignored any technical links posted here regarding these issues that don't correspond to your "wind is cheap" mantra...

I’m rubbishing the idea of “hidden” costs, yes, because if they were hidden, then nobody would know about them, would they?

The fact that you’ve been banging on about them this whole thread suggests they’re not very well hidden at all, doesn’t it?

So off you go and quantify these so-called “hidden” costs and come up with a figure for the real cost of wind to back up your argument.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your buddy CM claimed that grid operators have access to wind forecasts days ahead of such detail that they can plan exact grid balance at any given moment in time. Do you stand over that claim given the enormous variation of wind regimes in time and space across this island??

Show me where that claim was made.

Birdnuts wrote: »

You claimed wind farm output was entirely predictable?? Can you provide the weather model basis for this given vast differences in time and space of the wind regimes at any given time across this island??.

What kind of resolution are we talking about here? And why is that level of resolution necessary?

ted1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Of course if you assume the wind farm can refurbished for another 20 years at 20% of initial price then it drops to 1.17c

They won't though. The turbines are getting bigger each year so the groundwork a for a present size turbine won't hold a new turbine and the power curve of a newer turbine will far out way the benefits of refurbishing old turbines.

The LOCE will say to replace rather the refurbish

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

Nice assumptions there.

You obviously don't know much about geotechnical engineering, civil engineering ground bearing pressures, consolidation or foundations. Conventional civil engineering can provide perfectly adequate limited access roads across bogs, and have done in one way shape or form for several thousand years add to that the fact that there are low bearing pressure machines that can perform most of the construction work concerned and you can easily design and execute a project with an acceptable environmental and ecological footprint. Again, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

And you do??Certainly not based on that statement - I suggest you read up on this issue in terms of wind farm EIS statements and the links already posted here as regards the effects of constructing wind farms on bogs. Equating primitive Bronze age trackways which typically followed higher esker ridges in bogs to the massive amount of peat removal and drainage to secure the massive concrete bases of wind turbines, service roads constructed for heavy machinery access, plus substation etc. on open sloping blanket bogs is pure daft and has no baring to reality.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I have never said that wind was entirely predictable nor that they have such detail that they can plan exact grid balance at any given moment in time. :rolleyes:

.

Didn't think you'd be able to back up that claim or give any details of the basis of such wind forecasts. But I'm sure you slip it in again somewhere along the line as is your style. So if its not entirely predictable then what is the basis of the wind forecasts and their % accuracy as it relates to the running of the Irish energy grid??

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement you have in bold??

wtf ?




.


A large electricity surplus of about 15 TWh may be produced in 2020, worth about £2.5 billion at 17p / KWh. Oh dear Lord. It's not worth 17p. That's FOUR times the current UK wholesale price.

If you want to discuss economics then please at least have the decency to do a sanity check on the numbers before regurgitating blog posts.

The blog never mentioned wholesale price which as you know is a poor measure of the cost of wind energy on a grid and in any case swings widely from day to day depending on the fuel mix. The retail cost of energy currently in the UK is 10p before you include standing charges etc which adds another few pence to that figure. Given the sharp increases in retail power prices as you add wind capacity an assumption of 17p/KWh by 2020 is very reasonable given the scale of wind farm expansion the Scottish government has planned

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement you have in bold??

wtf ?

Seriously ??
you want me to explain why there might possibly be a lower demand for gas peaking plant when last winter 25% power was supplied by wind ? And as your lot like to point out wind strength varies, so for some of that time 50% of our power came from wind.




.

It appears you are simply regurgitating a rather flawed SEAI report on the matter with simplistic and inaccurate assumptions about the nature of wind energy on the Irish grid and its interaction with gas plant.

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/12/seais-quantifying-savings-from.html

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

What’s your point?
I’m rubbishing the idea of “hidden” costs, yes, because if they were hidden, then nobody would know about them, would they?

The fact that you’ve been banging on about them this whole thread suggests they’re not very well hidden at all, doesn’t it?

So off you go and quantify these so-called “hidden” costs and come up with a figure for the real cost of wind to back up your argument.
Show me where that claim was made.
?

You claimed the PSO levy was the only cost relating to wind energy on the grid and then rubbished the possibility of other costs until I pointed out the cost of wind related network costs like the grid west project for just 2 wind farms. I and others described these costs as "hidden" since they are not included in the wind element of the PSO levy which is the basis of the "wind is cheap" mantra pedalled by the likes of yourself.

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

And you do??Certainly not based on that statement - I suggest you read up on this issue in terms of wind farm EIS statements and the links already posted here as regards the effects of constructing wind farms on bogs. Equating primitive Bronze age trackways which typically followed higher esker ridges in bogs to the massive amount of peat removal and drainage to secure the massive concrete bases of wind turbines, service roads constructed for heavy machinery access, plus substation etc. on open sloping blanket bogs is pure daft and has no baring to reality.

Yes, I do. Its what I do for a crust.
The principles behind it haven't changed.
Open sloping blanket bogs are much easier to deal with than basin bogs by the way.

I suggest maybe you have a read of an EIS or two yourself.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD0QFjAFahUKEwjyrvvYh-TIAhVD3KYKHTncDxg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaighnewindfarm.ie%2Fcustom%2Fpublic%2Ffiles%2Fmaighne-wind-farm-non-technical-summary-compressed.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF4q34zsvbWUOoBAL3eNhxLPf25cw

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAEahUKEwiQp_HIiOTIAhUB4KYKHV-nCoI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fv942.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fappendix-1-scoping-responses.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE0zW38-bfekdVjRll53-Ch4QDSCA

Solid engineering and planning can mitigate the vast majority of the habitat and ecological destruction you are so worried about.

Unregulated development would be a disaster, on that we can agree, but the impacts your are suggesting do not reflect the reality on the ground.
The localized footprints are small, the highest impacts are temporary in nature (during construction phase) and the net result is a massive long term benefit.

Arguing the point on the basis of dispatchability as FClauson has been doing is a realistic and ongoing issue related to the actual productivity and benefit from the windfarms to our current grid and some extremely valid points have been made in that argument. However to try and argue that the boglands of Ireland are facing destruction despite adequate study, design, mitigation and good engineering and construction practice is hyperbole. I understand the value of these areas as habitats and the need to preserve and conserve them, but when executed correctly these same areas are more likely to be managed, preserved and monitored as there is a commitment to look after them.

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

Yes, I do. Its what I do for a crust.
The principles behind it haven't changed.
Open sloping blanket bogs are much easier to deal with than basin bogs by the way.

I suggest maybe you have a read of an EIS or two yourself.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD0QFjAFahUKEwjyrvvYh-TIAhVD3KYKHTncDxg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaighnewindfarm.ie%2Fcustom%2Fpublic%2Ffiles%2Fmaighne-wind-farm-non-technical-summary-compressed.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF4q34zsvbWUOoBAL3eNhxLPf25cw

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAEahUKEwiQp_HIiOTIAhUB4KYKHV-nCoI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fv942.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fappendix-1-scoping-responses.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE0zW38-bfekdVjRll53-Ch4QDSCA

Solid engineering and planning can mitigate the vast majority of the habitat and ecological destruction you are so worried about.

Unregulated development would be a disaster, on that we can agree, but the impacts your are suggesting do not reflect the reality on the ground.
The localized footprints are small, the highest impacts are temporary in nature (during construction phase) and the net result is a massive long term benefit.

Arguing the point on the basis of dispatchability as FClauson has been doing is a realistic and ongoing issue related to the actual productivity and benefit from the windfarms to our current grid and some extremely valid points have been made in that argument. However to try and argue that the boglands of Ireland are facing destruction despite adequate study, design, mitigation and good engineering and construction practice is hyperbole. I understand the value of these areas as habitats and the need to preserve and conserve them, but when executed correctly these same areas are more likely to be managed, preserved and monitored as there is a commitment to look after them.

Certainly to the wind developers who seem to be your primary concern. I'm sure the developers in the case below also wrote about what little impact their wind farm would have on the bog in question in the EIS they submitted.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dangers-of-building-wind-farms-in-upland-areas-highlighted-1.387261

If your that experienced in this area you will know that developers always seek to downplay the negative environmental consequences in their EIS documents
In a proper planning system the state would commissions its own independent EIS before deciding on such things. Sadly in this country its up to concerned individials and NGO's to highlight the many flaws that are often present in developer wind farm EIS statements of the type you have linked to. In the case of the proposed Maighne wind farm you have linked to, the submissions from outside agencies tell a very different story to the one the developer would have us believe

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Certainly to the wind developers who seem to be your primary concern. I'm sure the developers in the case below also wrote about what little impact their wind farm would have on the bog in question in the EIS they submitted.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dangers-of-building-wind-farms-in-upland-areas-highlighted-1.387261

If your that experienced in this area ....
.....In a proper planning system the state would commissions its own independent EIS before deciding on such things. Sadly in this country its up to concerned individials and NGO's to highlight the many flaws that are often present in developer wind farm EIS statements of the type you have linked to. In the case of the proposed Maighne wind farm you have linked to, the submissions from outside agencies tell a very different story to the one the developer would have us believe

I'd just like to make something clear, I have no interests or agenda regarding any developer, energy supplier, reporting body or stakeholder group. I couldn't really be further removed, being on the far side of the world.

Here you have highlighted an incident from 12 years ago, in an area that has had similar issues occur without any influence from windfarms
http://www.from-ireland.net/bog-bursts-galway/

The response from ABP since then in relation to this area has been more appropriate
: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjADahUKEwihv-TqnOTIAhVBGaYKHfcRDsc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtpi.org.uk%2Fmedia%2F9685%2FRTPI-AA-Seminar-Aebhin-Cawley-April-2011.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGx3267zDq6sfdQ2foxVC6kq4zLMg&bvm=bv.106130839,d.dGY

As you have rightly pointed out, with the current system those who pay the piper call the tune. But you were the one who suggested referring to the EIS, not me.

To say that they cannot be built without destroying the habitats is incorrect.
To say that the developer will design and construct safely without policed requirements is wildly optimistic and equally incorrect.

The sad fact is that our government is too busy with Quangos and committees writing reports about reports to have actually sat down with all the stakeholders and come up with a coherent strategy to zone, assess and impose controls on would be wind-farm developers from day one.

I don't even think that there has been enough research done on the human impact, http://stopthesethings.com/2014/03/20/david-mortimer-wind-turbine-torture-at-millicent-south-australia/which in the case of Ireland is highly significant.

I think the one thing we will agree on is that the current situation is a farce, It has all been rushed and at this stage is only suiting the developers.
The circus will keep going as long as we keep putting clowns in Leinster house.

fclauson

AngryHippie wrote: »

To say that the developer will design and construct safely without policed requirements is wildly optimistic and equally incorrect.

hear hear
its nothing short of a disgrace that I have found 20 or 30 wind farms where the implementation of the planning conditions is basically non existent - specifically in regard to noise

The sad fact is that our government is too busy with Quangos and committees writing reports about reports to have actually sat down with all the stakeholders and come up with a coherent strategy to zone, assess and impose controls on would be wind-farm developers from day one.

hear hear

I don't even think that there has been enough research done on the human impact, http://stopthesethings.com/2014/03/20/david-mortimer-wind-turbine-torture-at-millicent-south-australia/which in the case of Ireland is highly significant.

hear hear

I think the one thing we will agree on is that the current situation is a farce, It has all been rushed and at this stage is only suiting the developers.
The circus will keep going as long as we keep putting clowns in Leinster house.

that's the great thing about democracy :P

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Didn't think you'd be able to back up that claim or give any details of the basis of such wind forecasts.

Maybe you could point out where such a claim was made?

Birdnuts wrote: »

You claimed the PSO levy was the only cost relating to wind energy…

Show me exactly where I said that.

Angry bird

This is interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/01/can-bladeless-wind-turbines-mute-opposition

Markcheese

Could be brilliant ... still a good few years off though . And there are down sides.
There'll be a lot more masts per acre , and a lot more foundations and ground didturbance . Also wont suit all sites ( a lot of turbines are on tall masts to take advantage of higher winds further up -
But if it works great .

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ve already addressed everything you’ve listed there, most of which is just opinion, by the way. I have neither the time nor patience to repost everything again, particularly when it's obvious you're not taking anything on board.

No, you haven't. You and the Captain have either avoided every point, posted evasions or sarky bs.

No-one on your side has said anything about the massive bat kills. Someone posted an article claiming that barotrauma from windmills is killing 200,000 bats every year in Germany alone, and a quick wikipedia search will tell you that windmills are as much an existential threat to bat populations as White Nose Syndrome. I.E. an existential threat. Neither you nor the Captain have said anything about that. As such, just on that topic alone, there is absolutely nothing to indicate windmills are anything less than quasi-religious insanity.

I also asked for an explanation of what is going on near the German borders of Poland and Czech Republic, which I've posted about many times, your only response has been sarky bs, which I quoted in my post.

I also asked about the effect of less stable energy supplies on existing German industrial equipment, that was dealt with only in the most vague terms.

There has been nothing to indicate that the strategy followed by France in the 1970s, with 2nd gen reactors, leading to limited power costs and a largely non-fossil electricity supply, was not a good idea. Nor has there been anything resembling a vision for what France now has - a 90%+ non-fossil supply only by non-nuclear means.

There has been no explanation for why it costs so much to buy a kwh of power in Demark or Germany, with the former being more expensive than Kiribati. Or why France has about half the electricity cost of Denmark, or Serbia, 1/6th the cost.

Capt'nMidnight wrote:

Parts of places like the Burren are bare rock.

Seriously, I had just called you out for wanted to wallpaper the country including Sandymount Strand which you posted about as a place to cover with solar panels, now you're hinting at screwing with the Burren. Is there one of Ireland's national treasures you don't basically want to carpet-bomb with these godawful windmills and solar panels? The National Stud? Bunratty Castle? Seriously. The flippin' Burren. and Sandymount Strand. Bloody hell.

The comparison was to an EPR plant

An EPR will generate 1600MW when completed, by contrast existing French 2nd gen reactors generate about 1300MW each. So you simply have the reduce the figures by a little under 1/5th. It's still an awful lot of land to basically carpet-bomb. Oh and the land would be nearly useless for anything else. Solar panels would take away sunlight from the ground so nothing can grow on them, windmill surrounds might be useful for farming, but noone will want to live there and forget about tourism, why on Earth would for example a German want to come to Ireland to see windmills when their own country is carpet bombed with the sodding things?

Markcheese wrote: »

Could be brilliant ... still a good few years off though . And there are down sides.
There'll be a lot more masts per acre , and a lot more foundations and ground didturbance . Also wont suit all sites ( a lot of turbines are on tall masts to take advantage of higher winds further up -
But if it works great .

I could get behind these, provided:

1. They didn't cost a fortune.
2. They didn't cause barotrauma to bats.
3. Storage advances to the point that they don't need gas backup.

Not holding my breath on any of that BTW.

Macha

[mod] Eh, can we calm down the hyperbolic language? "Carpet-bombing" the country with windmills - overly emotive much? [/mod]

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

No-one on your side has said anything about the massive bat kills.

My side? Right...

You seem to be suggesting that I have denied that, like every form of power generation, wind turbines have an ecological impact? Perhaps you could link to a post in which such denial is evident?

SeanW wrote: »

I also asked for an explanation of what is going on near the German borders of Poland and Czech Republic, which I've posted about many times, your only response has been sarky bs, which I quoted in my post.

The article seems pretty self-explanatory - what is it exactly that you would like me to explain?

SeanW wrote: »

I also asked about the effect of less stable energy supplies on existing German industrial equipment, that was dealt with only in the most vague terms.

Perfect example of you ignoring posts that don’t suit your argument. In such scenarios, the company in question could easily sue the power suppliers for damages.

SeanW wrote: »

There has been nothing to indicate that the strategy followed by France in the 1970s, with 2nd gen reactors, leading to limited power costs and a largely non-fossil electricity supply, was not a good idea.

Hinkley Point C. For the umpteenth time, Hinkley Point C.

SeanW wrote: »

There has been no explanation for why it costs so much to buy a kwh of power in Demark or Germany…

There have been numerous explanations offered. There have numerous explanations offered for the cost of electricity in Ireland too.

Your turn: explain why Hinkley Point C is going to be so incredibly expensive?

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

[mod] Eh, can we calm down the hyperbolic language? "Carpet-bombing" the country with windmills - overly emotive much? [/mod]

well

www.windnoise.info

depends where you live

Macha

[mod] Please, no in-thread discussion of moderation. My point stands. [/mod]

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

No, you haven't. You and the Captain have either avoided every point, posted evasions or sarky bs.

you may want to check your auto-correct it's not spelt evasions, it's spelt evidence.

No-one on your side has said anything about the massive bat kills.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-europe.html

Europe's bat population recovered by more than 40 percent between 1993 and 2011 after decades of decline, according to a survey published by the European Environment Agency (EEA) on Thursday.

could there be a correlation with the rollout of wind farms ??

There has been nothing to indicate that the strategy followed by France in the 1970s, with 2nd gen reactors, leading to limited power costs and a largely non-fossil electricity supply, was not a good idea. Nor has there been anything resembling a vision for what France now has - a 90%+ non-fossil supply only by non-nuclear means.

LOL
You keep ignoring that France is committed to drop to 50% nuclear within a decade. (the Finnish EPR will have taken at least 15 years from approval )
There is also the slight issue of possible military subsides (on a side note their ICBM's and the SRB's on Arianne space rocket are more or less the same)

There has been no explanation for why it costs so much to buy a kwh of power

We've tried to explain to you that retail and wholesale prices are very different. But you keep ignoring it and harping on about ust the retail price.

It's like arguing about how much it costs to produce beer in different countries by comparing the price of a pint in pubs. Comparing the price in supermarkets would be a better option but even that doesn't take into account the VAT or excise duty.

You have also completely ignored the fact that Hinkley C will be getting 9.25p a KWhr or whatever that index linked price will have gone up to if/when it ever starts generating. And no guarantees that price won't go up or that there won't be yet more hidden subsidies behind it.

Seriously, I had just called you out for wanted to wallpaper the country including Sandymount Strand which you posted about as a place to cover with solar panels, now you're hinting at screwing with the Burren.

Yeah right. Just pointing out that we have a lot of unproductive land. And roofs. Of course scenic and amenity areas already pay for them selves. It's a counter point to "it would take X amount of space to do what nuclear will do". In theory we could install up to 25GW of solar on the bogs Bord Na Mona won't be using in 2030. Actually you probably could up that by 50% if solar efficiency keeps increasing. It's not going to happen but its possible.

An EPR will generate 1600MW when completed, by contrast existing French 2nd gen reactors generate about 1300MW each.

LO
"when completed" Finland gave the go ahead 12 years ago. And won't get a single KWh for at least another 3 years. Costs needless to say have spiralled. There are also the hidden costs of getting power from alternative sources for over a decade.

Our minimum ever summer night valley was a little over 1700MW. We'd have to backup a nuke with enough spinning reserve too. Remember nuclear safety means they have to shutdown if there are any problems, like corrosion, design and construction errors, cooling pump problems, transformers, fake parts, sabotage, jellyfish etc. so you really need that spinning reserve.

So you simply have the reduce the figures by a little under 1/5th. It's still an awful lot of land to basically carpet-bomb. Oh and the land would be nearly useless for anything else. Solar panels would take away sunlight from the ground so nothing can grow on them,

You've never even seen a picture of a solar farm have you ??

Most have less than 50% ground coverage. Here in Ireland we get a lot of clouds so a lot of the time sunlight is diffuse. And lots of plants like shade. Panels offer shade. It's not like there is a veil of absolute lightlessness behind them.

windmill surrounds might be useful for farming,

Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, he has seen the light

but noone will want to live there and forget about tourism, why on Earth would for example a German want to come to Ireland to see windmills when their own country is carpet bombed with the sodding things?

The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one he said
The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one but still they come!

Wayne Jeff - Eve Of The War Lyrics
Yeah since we got windmills German tourists have been staying away in droves.


I could get behind these, provided:

1. They didn't cost a fortune.
2. They didn't cause barotrauma to bats.
3. Storage advances to the point that they don't need gas backup.

Not holding my breath on any of that BTW.

They don't cost a fortune. Payback time is less than nuclear plant construction time.

43% increase in bat numbers since wind farms were rolled out.

And the third wish is for economic magic, "storage would be too cheap to meter" stuff. you know the sort of thing that nuclear has promised for 70 years but never coming remotely close to delivering on.

I have repeatedly pointed out that cheap wind and solar have utterly decimated pre-existing pumped storage in Germany. Short version Storage is so expensive that it can only exist when you have guaranteed peaks where power costs multiples of the base rate. Thanks to renewables these peaks are fewer.

Long version
There are two reasons. Storage is expensive to build. (it's another hidden cost that the pro-nuclear crowd consistently ignore, because they need cheap storage to justify a large % of nuclear power but won't admit that if it was available renewables would undercut them)
the second is efficiency. storage is at best 90% efficient , 70% is a better best real world metric. so unless you have a 30%+ running costs spread between peak price and night rate every day you won't even break even. And renewables mean that you won't get it every day. And if you don't get it every day than that you need a lot more than a 30% + running costs spread when you do get it.