Wind farms - ugly truths

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

Do or do they not ok price increases?? I'd also like to know your definition of a regulator??

They do not. You can read a short explanation here if you don't believe me.

In the past (until about 2010), they regulated ESB's prices to ensure other suppliers had a chance to enter the market. This might kick in again should ESB/Electric Ireland's market share increase over 60% (at the moment they're sitting just under it as the most expensive supplier in Ireland - this is part of the reason prices aren't falling. ESB/Electric Ireland can't drop prices without going over 60% and people aren't shifting away from them).

The role of regulator is significantly more complicated than you are thinking. In this case, it's not about ok-ing price increases, it's about ensuring security of supply, making certain market bids are fairly arrived at, and protecting the consumer from cartel/monopoly abuse of market power.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Exactly - constructing excess wind capacity that makes little environmental or economic sense

Not really - investment has been in a range of different tech (and, as I've described earlier, wind has a depressive effect on price due to its zero marginal price bids). Ireland has also had major investment in modern gas units since 2000 or so. As I've said before, it's not all about wind

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suggest you keep up with his most recent musings on the subject. That book was published way back in 2008, before he took up his post with the DECC, where he appears to have changed his opinions radically on the subject of wind power on the UK grid as my linked posts on the matter show.

It's worth taking his entire message as opposed to the quote you want. David MacKay is a proponent of fact based "warts and all" discussion on the matter - he still comes out in favour of them.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables/transcript?language=en

To quote him directly, and in the spirit of what his message is:

We need to stop shouting and start talking, and if we can have a grown-up conversation, make a plan that adds up and get building, maybe this low-carbon revolution will actually be fun.

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Are there rules here about impartial modding?? I suggest you re-read that post and you will find I listed the points that your side-kick has consistently refused to address and then provided a link which expanded on those points. Or are you seriously saying I have to cut,copy and paste entire PDF documents for posters that are too lazy to click on a link????

[mod]No in-thread discussion of moderation. If there's something I said that you don't understand, send a PM. If you have a problem with my modding, report it.[/mod]

Birdnuts wrote: »

I've linked to a number quotations from David Mackay a number of times, including his own twitter account. If you can't be ar$ed paying attention to these posts then please don't make lazy and inaccurate comments as to my debating style. Below are a number of examples of my posts/links covering David Mackays analysis of wind/solar costs etc. on the UK grid.

[mod]Aaaaand you've just earned yourself a 1 day ban for ignoring mod instructions. You can use the time to think about what it means to carry out a civil debate without being rude to your fellow posters. [/mod]

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

I made specific reference to the article you linked to. Here, it is stated
that renewables are pushing up prices for consumers:





But later in the article, it is claimed that the problem with renewables is
that the energy they produce is too cheap

:

That statement suggests you still don't understand the realities and costs of wind energy on a national grid. Which is why I posted that link which explains the end costs of all types of energy generation on grids. The fact that you refuse to even read the summary suggusts to me you have no interest in any type of sensible debate on the matter. Many of the items in the link have already been discussed in this thread such as wind related network costs, spinning reserve plant etc. but again you continue to claim no such issues arise. I rest my case

The obvious conclusion here is that there is a problem with the market

.


You've really excelled youself here - thats like saying theres a problem with the reality of gravity. Pray tell what "market" you would operate to run such a national grid and where such a market exists(assuming it exists at all)

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

David MacKay is still a very outspoken proponent of renewables. For example, here is a "map of the world" he has produced, last updated in June 2013, showing countries' power consumptions, population densities, and areas and comparing power consumptions per unit area with the power production per unit area of various renewables.

He has written extensively on the subject and worked under the previous UK government regime that was very pro wind/solar. What my links highlighed, is that he has expressed growing reservations in the past year(since leaving the DECC) about the spriralling cost of wind/solar on the UK grid and their implications for grid balance in the context recent energy cruches on same grid.

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

It's worth taking his entire message as opposed to the quote you want. David MacKay is a proponent of fact based "warts and all" discussion on the matter - he still comes out in favour of them.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables/transcript?language=en

To quote him directly, and in the spirit of what his message is:

Those musing are several years old. My links referring to his most recent observations on these matters which show he has growing reservations on the matter of wind/solar costs as they pertain to a national grid and the functioning of such a grid at times of high energy demand and low wind/solar outputs

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

In the past (until about 2010), they regulated ESB's prices to ensure other
suppliers had a chance to enter the market. This might kick in again should
ESB/Electric Ireland's market share increase over 60% (at the moment they're
sitting just under it as the most expensive supplier in Ireland - this is part
of the reason prices aren't falling. ESB/Electric Ireland can't drop prices
without going over 60% and people aren't shifting away from them).





The role of regulator is significantly more complicated than you are
thinking. In this case, it's not about ok-ing price increases, it's about
ensuring security of supply, making certain market bids are fairly arrived at,
and protecting the consumer from cartel/monopoly abuse of market power

.

I think a little history lesson is needed here to clear up a few things. About 15 years ago when Ireland was in the nice position of having below EU averge power prices and the ESB looking after both grid and supply. The CER took it apon themselves to force the ESB to dramitically increase power prices to consumers so that the that likes of SSE and Airtricty with their extensive wind farm interests could enter the market and tap the Irish consumer for fat profits. Some move by a regulator that was mean't to protect the interests of irish power consumers!!. Since then they have made the situation even worse by allowing a raft of new wind energy related levies,tariffs and extra grids costs to be dumped on the shoulders of Irish power users.

In light of the above realities it is simply not credable to claim that the CER has no role in the current high cost of power in this country. Add in Eirgrids recent statements about needing to pay consumers to switch off when peak demand times meet low wind conditions in the future (the costs of which will see energy bills further spiral), it doesn't say much for this government quango, or their fellow travellers in Eirgrid,SEI etc.!!

). Ireland has also had major investment in modern gas units
since 2000 or so. As I've said before, it's not all about wind

Hmmm - did we not sell off alot of our gas generationg capacity on the cheap under the previous minister for wind turbines?? I suppose you'll claim that was another great deal for the consumer:rolleyes:

Markcheese

The state sold bord gais energy and its 1 gas fired power station in whitegate on the cheap.but its still there ... dont think the esb sold any gas generation...they did sell a few other plants including tarbert( oil ) ,and built a few gas plants ( aghada and ringsend spring to mind ) ... but anyway a lot of money spent in the state on gas generation since 2000

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

That statement suggests you still don't understand the realities and costs of wind energy on a national grid. Which is why I posted that link which explains the end costs of all types of energy generation on grids.

didn't the graph on page 5 (or thereabouts) show that wind was a third the price of open cycle gas ?
and that's the price of gas in the fracking US of A

other than that the error bars for wind overlap most other generation sources.

and of course I take exception to the cost of nuclear (actually all of these reviews have a bias and there's all sorts of ways of "levelling" costs) seeing as how it's a lot less than the EDF strike price , and doesn't include waste repository and clean up costs (fully how they keep increasing despite the claims that money has been set aside)
It's very hard to work out the true cost of nuclear due to the timescales involved. net present value and opportunity costs , especially in an era where renewables are getting cheaper

Markcheese wrote: »

The state sold bord gais energy and its 1 gas fired power station in whitegate on the cheap.but its still there ... dont think the esb sold any gas generation...they did sell a few other plants including tarbert( oil ) ,and built a few gas plants ( aghada and ringsend spring to mind ) ... but anyway a lot of money spent in the state on gas generation since 2000

[edit] Look the document you posted earlier, open cycle gas is three times the price of the most efficient ones. Same thing in Germany where they stopped building new coal stations even before they phased out nuclear. But the ones already under construction were completed, (to lots of FUD from the nay sayers) because they were up to 45% efficient and allowed the older ones which were as low as 25% efficient to be closed. Same here , some of the new gas plants are up to 60% efficient.

And before all the FUD about gas not being as efficient when not at full load, first of all the open cycle stuff here only runs at 2/3 of max power to provide spinning reserve and to load balance. next the efficiency only drops when you get to low levels of generation and you use a hell of a lot less fossil fuel.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

Those musing are several years old. My links referring to his most recent observations on these matters which show he has growing reservations on the matter of wind/solar costs as they pertain to a national grid and the functioning of such a grid at times of high energy demand and low wind/solar outputs

Recent presentations from the horse's mouth. Start on his most recent, turn to slide 98 and continue from there to see his current thoughts on 2050 paths. You're cherrypicking.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

…you still don't understand…

Really, really lazy debating.

You’re the one who is lacking understanding – just because something is published on the internet, it doesn’t mean it’s indisputable fact.

Birdnuts wrote: »

You've really excelled youself here - thats like saying theres a problem with the reality of gravity.

Well, no, it obviously isn’t, because gravity is not a man-made economic construct.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Pray tell what "market" you would operate to run such a national grid and where such a market exists(assuming it exists at all)

Well, how about removing all subsidies for starters. Subsidies for renewables are already being phased out, so let’s get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear too.

Secondly, we know that coal-fired generation, in particular, has a large environmental impact, so cost that impact and factor it into the market model. This can be achieved in a revenue-neutral manner. Suppose for example we factor in a cost associated with sulphur emissions. Those costs can be channelled into a fund used exclusively for grid modernisation and upkeep.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think a little history lesson is needed here to clear up a few things. About 15 years ago when Ireland was in the nice position of having below EU averge power prices and the ESB looking after both grid and supply. The CER took it apon themselves to force the ESB to dramitically increase power prices to consumers so that the that likes of SSE and Airtricty with their extensive wind farm interests could enter the market and tap the Irish consumer for fat profits. Some move by a regulator that was mean't to protect the interests of irish power consumers!!. Since then they have made the situation even worse by allowing a raft of new wind energy related levies,tariffs and extra grids costs to be dumped on the shoulders of Irish power users.

In light of the above realities it is simply not credable to claim that the CER has no role in the current high cost of power in this country.

You understand that everything you've described here (in a really wonky "wind is responsible for everything" way) was mandated by EU directives right? CER did the job they were legally required to do.

Now, if you want to argue that markets aren't necessarily the best way to do electrical supply, I'd mostly agree with that (assumptions of rational consumers rarely hold). That's a different argument though.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Add in Eirgrids recent statements about needing to pay consumers to switch off when peak demand times meet low wind conditions in the future (the costs of which will see energy bills further spiral), it doesn't say much for this government quango, or their fellow travellers in Eirgrid,SEI etc.!!

Absolute rubbish - we already covered what demand side management is and why it's a good idea when you brought this up the first time. DSM can make for huge savings by shifting power use a couple of hours away from the peak demand hours.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hmmm - did we not sell off alot of our gas generationg capacity on the cheap under the previous minister for wind turbines?? I suppose you'll claim that was another great deal for the consumer:rolleyes:

Whitegate is still on the system. It just has a different owner now.

In other words, this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand (I don't think Whitegate should have been sold but that's a different topic).

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

Recent presentations from the horse's mouth. Start on his most recent, turn to slide 98 and continue from there to see his current thoughts on 2050 paths. You're cherrypicking.

The most recent link only goes to slide 50.

PS: You pretty good at cherrypicking yourself

EDIT - I've just found that link. Certainly I don't see any ringing endorsement of recent UK wind/solar policies in that slide show. Indeed wind gets little enough mention apart from when he suggests that wind is currently too expensive etc. on a grid. Basically the same points he made in my Economist link

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Really, really lazy debating.

You’re the one who is lacking understanding – just because something is published on the internet, it doesn’t mean it’s indisputable fact.
Well, no, it obviously isn’t, because gravity is not a man-made economic construct.
Well, how about removing all subsidies for starters. Subsidies for renewables are already being phased out, so let’s get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear too.

Secondly, we know that coal-fired generation, in particular, has a large environmental impact, so cost that impact and factor it into the market model. This can be achieved in a revenue-neutral manner. Suppose for example we factor in a cost associated with sulphur emissions. Those costs can be channelled into a fund used exclusively for grid modernisation and upkeep.

I asked you for specific examples of such a market and what would be the total cost to the the end user - you then respond by calling me lazy, along with coming up with stuff off the top of your head. In contrast I provided links to actual studies on the costings of various types of energy generation on an actual working grid. Its a pity there is not an "ignore" function on this forum as you clearly have no intention of engaging constructively on this matter.

PS - coal and gas are not subsidized in this country. And can you show me any evidence of this government reducing wind supports of various kinds?? I w

Birdnuts

You understand that everything you've described here (in a really wonky "wind is
responsible for everything" way) was mandated by EU directives right? CER did the job they were legally
required to do.

Did the EU specifically tell the CER to jack up ESB prices in that period??

Absolute rubbish - we already covered what demand side management is and why
it's a good idea when you brought this up the first time. DSM can make for huge
savings by shifting power use a couple of hours away from the peak demand
hours.

Really - I must have missed that. Like a certain other poster your very light on detail when it comes to end user costings on all this and where all these "savings" end up,base unit price etc.. Or indeed how would this work in practice during prolonged periods of low wind conditions of the type we saw earlier this winter.

other words, this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand (I don't think
Whitegate should have been sold but that's a different topic)

I would say its very relevant when the state looses money on such deals as invariably its the tax-payer or end energy user that gets hit in the pocket. The very people who appear to be the fall guys too when it comes to our wind developer driven energy policies imposed by the various government quangoes responsible for the current shambles.

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

The most recent link only goes to slide 50.

PS: You pretty good at cherrypicking yourself

The most recent link has 128 pages, dated 2/12/2015
The second most recent has 50 pages dated 9/10/2015

Both presentations by person you have commended as an expert contradict what you are saying.

Another B-52 Mission.

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

The most recent link has 128 pages, dated 2/12/2015
The second most recent has 50 pages dated 9/10/2015

Both presentations by person you have commended as an expert contradict what you are saying.

Another B-52 Mission.

So your claiming he was mis-quoted in both my links?? I assume he will be taking the Economist etc. to court in that case.

PS: I've gone through those pages and its far from a ringing endorsement of wind energy or current energy policies based on wind energy. Indeed he doesn't say a whole lot about it apart from saying "we need cheaper wind energy" ie. wind energy is currently too costly. If you read my links on his comments in the area they chime with this as he is saying that currently wind/solar isn't doing the business on cost, grid performance etc

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

So your claiming he was mis-quoted in both my links?? I assume he will be taking the Economist etc. to court in that case.

Did you even look at the slides ?
They are posted directly by him, on his own website.

Not interpreted by some economist journo, not paraphrased by a third party with their own agenda.

You can assume whatever you want about his course of actions, as long as you continue to ignore this, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

The fact that you haven't mentioned or picked up on the three or four points that he agrees with some of your points (Slide 61, Slide 76, Slide 87)

Either way, I've gotten to the point on this thread where I've got the facts, I know where I am at on it, and I'm not getting sucked into the tit for tat balloney Ninja Edits or point scoring.

Have fun;)

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

Did you even look at the slides ?
They are posted directly by him, on his own website.

Not interpreted by some economist journo, not paraphrased by a third party with their own agenda.

You can assume whatever you want about his course of actions, as long as you continue to ignore this, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

The fact that you haven't mentioned or picked up on the three or four points that he agrees with some of your points (Slide 61, Slide 76, Slide 87)

Either way, I've gotten to the point on this thread where I've got the facts, I know where I am at on it, and I'm not getting sucked into the tit for tat balloney Ninja Edits or point scoring.

Have fun;)

The Economist link quoted him saying that recent wind/solar policies in the UK are not delivering on cost etc. I see nothing in that slide show that disputes that fact. Indeed the link isn't even that relevant as wind energy hardly gets mentioned when it comes to his visions for reducing emissions in the future.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: You pretty good at cherrypicking yourself

Hah. No.

Money where mouth is time - go find me something in this thread I cherrypicked.

Birdnuts wrote: »

EDIT - I've just found that link. Certainly I don't see any ringing endorsement of recent UK wind/solar policies in that slide show. Indeed wind gets little enough mention apart from when he suggests that wind is currently too expensive etc. on a grid. Basically the same points he made in my Economist link

But with a great deal more context that makes it clear MacKay's overall position doesn't match the Economist's slant on it. As I said, he favours warts and all discussion on the matter - no airy fairy magic solutions or "we can't!" stuff. It's why he's worth reading.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

Did the EU specifically tell the CER to jack up ESB prices in that period??

The EU mandated that they create a competitive market - including anti-monopoly actions on existing state owned suppliers. So, broadly, yes. The CER could possibly have forced ESB to split into two supply companies, then sold one to private holders. This would likely have been worse though (ie. look at the mess that was Eircom).

ESB being such a strong brand though has had knock on impacts - people just aren't willing to leave them so there's little downwards pressure on prices.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Really - I must have missed that. Like a certain other poster your very light on detail when it comes to end user costings on all this and where all these "savings" end up,base unit price etc.. Or indeed how would this work in practice during prolonged periods of low wind conditions of the type we saw earlier this winter.

Go back to where you first brought it up. Look at the next handful of points. You'll see it covered there.

You want a specific explanation. Fair enough. This is fairly rough (and maybe slightly long) but should cover the bases.

The SEM (Irish wholesale power market) sets price (which is paid to everyone) based on what the most expensive generator that has to be turned on is (and the most expensive MW from it).

This is a solid enough system because it incentivizes generator efficiency (generators have to bid in their true short term marginal cost - the bigger the efficiency difference between a generator and the last unit turned on, the more money they make) and it's relatively transparent to analysis.

This is a fairly typical daily electricity demand profile for Ireland. You can see there's two fairly steep rises in it - one at 6am (the day starts), and one around 6pm (work day end/dinner time). These are associated with increases in market price (generators need to be started to meet them). The 6am one is load sustained through the day - so can be met with relatively efficient generators designed to run for long hours (small price increase for the daytime hours over the night).

In contrast, the 6pm one is just for an hour or two - it needs to be met with quick starting generators. This means the associated price is much higher (it can go over €200/MWh for this hour fairly regularly).

If you can avoid having those peaking plant be needed (by paying for load to shift an hour or two forward or back), you lower the average market price significantly. Pulling numbers from today's market, you have €216.60/MWh ( @6,068 MW) for the peak hours, €42.94 max (@5,141 MW load) during the rest of the day. I think you gave the DSM price as €100 per MWh. If you can get 927 MW of DSM (which is a huge amount but used here for a nice clear example), to drop your demand down to that level by paying them, the cost of that hour goes from €1,314,329 (€216.6*6068) to €313,455 (€42.94*5141 +€100*927) - about a €1M saving for that hour. Now, worst case, lets say you can't move the needle on whether you're using that peaking plant or not (so the price of that 5141MW remains at €216.6), the sums still come out at around €108k saved.

DSM is a pretty clever way to use plant capacity more efficiently basically. It costs less to supply the energy when you spread it out over the surrounding hours instead. It's a bit like a more targeted version of the old nightsaver rates.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I would say its very relevant when the state looses money on such deals as invariably its the tax-payer or end energy user that gets hit in the pocket. The very people who appear to be the fall guys too when it comes to our wind developer driven energy policies imposed by the various government quangoes responsible for the current shambles.

I'm still not seeing how it's relevant to the conversation at hand (it has no impact on energy prices or interaction with wind). Sorry man.

fclauson

Tangent time

Electric Ireland are the only people who pay domestic dwellings for exported spare PV - and this scheme is now closed to new entrants.

I receive 9c per KwH exported which equates to €90 /MwH (where as wind gets around €80 - see earlier in the thread on this)

I felt hard done by because around a year previously ESB Networks paid 9c along with Electric Ireland paying 9c - so a total of 18c/KwH or €180/MwH - but of course no body was up in arms at the costs of this !!!!

Separately I have a Heat Pump - which operates at around 420% efficiency - i.e. 1Kwh of energy in equates to around 4.2Kwh out
and I have no CO2 producing heating on site (except a wood only stove but they is regarded as renewable)

Questions:
1) If we are to encourage people to take ownership for domestic renewable how should this be achieved and more importantly what price should they get paid for export of any excess.
(See L's post above for some numbers to work on)

2) Around 90% of homes are heated via fossil fuels. Moving these to heat pump technology would permit large savings in CO2 - especially if they used wind power not at peak demand times.
How do we encourage this move?

to help answer Q2 see
page 27
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy-in-the-Residential-Sector/Energy-in-the-Residential-Sector-2013.pdf

and
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Fuel_Cost_Comparison/Domestic-Fuel-Cost-Comparisons.pdf

L

Interesting questions.

fclauson wrote: »

1) If we are to encourage people to take ownership for domestic renewable how should this be achieved and more importantly what price should they get paid for export of any excess.
(See L's post above for some numbers to work on)

Hard to do. Getting mass adoption would likely require something on the scale of the rural electrification scheme. Pricing is a difficult matter - as you observed, the rates for solar were quite high but adoption was still very low.

I wonder if a state or community owned model might work well - ie. installation costs borne by larger entity, reduced electricity bill is house owners to keep (potential perverse incentive here though to use more electricity - maybe reduction by market price for selfused?). Export paid at market rates goes to fund the process. Long term, there'd be the potential to "buy out" your installation and take the revenue for yourself.

Tough question basically.

fclauson wrote: »

2) Around 90% of homes are heated via fossil fuels. Moving these to heat pump technology would permit large savings in CO2 - especially if they used wind power not at peak demand times.
How do we encourage this move?

My gut instinct on this (assuming the state had no issue providing seed capital) would be to peg it to something already considered strong value - gas heating for example and use that as the selling point.

Offer the heat pumps "for free" with a price based on the equivalent gas heating price for a period of time long enough to recover the initial investment cost (at which point the heating price would drop to the true electricity price).

I don't have the time to work up figures on this but it should be a fairly straightforward calculation to work up repayment time given forecast gas/electricity prices, heat pump ratios and initial cost. Would need bulletproofing vs. falling fuel costs of course.

You could also probably do something similar for insulation (state pays, and marks up your heating bills so you get 50% of the savings and they get the other 50% until it's paid off).

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

But with a great deal more context that makes it clear MacKay's overall position doesn't match the Economist's slant on it. As I said, he favours warts and all discussion on the matter - no airy fairy magic solutions or "we can't!" stuff. It's why he's worth reading.

I simply cited links discussing his reservations on recent UK energy policies in relation to wind/solar. The usual suspects proceeded to throw a hissy fit over it. As you say yourself, the man is honest and open minded on the subject and discusses these subjects in a way that both sides of the argument can respect

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

The EU mandated that they create a competitive market - including anti-monopoly
actions on existing state owned suppliers. So, broadly, yes. The CER could
possibly have forced ESB to split into two supply companies, then sold one to
private holders. This would likely have been worse though (ie. look at the mess
that was Eircom).

ESB being such a strong brand though has had knock on
impacts - people just aren't willing to leave them so there's little downwards
pressure on prices

.

I don't buy that for a minute. The facts are that prices rocketed once the CER started interfering in a way that was certainly beneficial to vulture capitalists with wind interests. The facts are that the ESB where providing an excellent and cost effective service. Blaming consumers for the current high prices is seriously disingenuous given the estaiblished facts of the CER's etc. approach to our national grid

You want a specific explanation. Fair enough. This is fairly rough (and maybe
slightly long) but should cover the bases.

The SEM (Irish wholesale
power market) sets price (which is paid to everyone) based on what the most
expensive generator that has to be turned on is (and the most expensive MW from
it).

This is a solid enough system because it incentivizes generator
efficiency (generators have to bid in their true short term marginal cost - the
bigger the efficiency difference between a generator and the last unit turned
on, the more money they make) and it's relatively transparent to
analysis.

This is a fairly typical daily electricity demand profile
for Ireland. You can see there's two fairly steep rises in it - one at 6am (the
day starts), and one around 6pm (work day end/dinner time). These are associated
with increases in market price (generators need to be started to meet them). The
6am one is load sustained through the day - so can be met with relatively
efficient generators designed to run for long hours (small price increase for
the daytime hours over the night).

In contrast, the 6pm one is just for
an hour or two - it needs to be met with quick starting generators. This means
the associated price is much higher (it can go over €200/MWh for this hour
fairly regularly).

If you can avoid having those peaking plant be
needed (by paying for load to shift an hour or two forward or back), you lower
the average market price significantly. Pulling numbers from today's market, you
have €216.60/MWh ( @6,068 MW) for the peak hours, €42.94
max (@5,141 MW load) during the rest of the day. I think you gave the DSM price
as €100 per MWh. If you can get 927 MW of DSM (which is a huge amount but used
here for a nice clear example), to drop your demand down to that level by paying
them, the cost of that hour goes from €1,314,329 (€216.6*6068) to €313,455
(€42.94*5141 +€100*927) - about a €1M saving for that hour. Now, worst case,
lets say you can't move the needle on whether you're using that peaking plant or
not (so the price of that 5141MW remains at €216.6), the sums still come out at
around €108k saved.

DSM is a pretty clever way to use plant capacity
more efficiently basically. It costs less to supply the energy when you spread
it out over the surrounding hours instead. It's a bit like a more targeted
version of the old nightsaver rates.

A lot of "ifs" there.In any case I'm very aware of averge demand profiles etc. and thats not the point I was raising in relation to this matter. Everyone knows that the wholesale price of power can vary enormously hour to hour depending on the particular daily wind regime and so has little relevance to end user retail prices. I was looking at the whole system cost of such a regime and that's why I've been pointing out the levelised costs of wind on a grid(and even that now appears to underestimate this cost) as David Mackay and others have been pointing out in the links I've been providing. My question was about the interaction of DSM with the averge retail energy price over the course of a year when prolonged low wind conditions can occur over days and weeks. In the UK it has so far been only trialed with big industrial users, for very limited amounts of time and not over an entire consumer base Indeed many industries that depend on a round the clock reliable, reasonable cost energy supply are increasingly alarmed by such things, and as mentioned in the Economist there is an increasing movement of these industries out of the EU based on such concerns. This is the very reason why the UK and Germany are now scrambling to build new conventional power plants on the back of the increasing risk of "power crunches" on such grids.This is what is so alarming about the most recent proposal from the empire builders at Eirgrid who seem to think the irish energy consumer is some kind of lab rat they can test out their increasingly daft and costly "theories" on!!

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

I don't buy that for a minute. The facts are that prices rocketed once the CER started interfering in a way that was certainly beneficial to vulture capitalists with wind interests. The facts are that the ESB where providing an excellent and cost effective service. Blaming consumers for the current high prices is seriously disingenuous given the estaiblished facts of the CER's etc. approach to our national grid

Fortunately you don't have to take my word for it - there's the figures to back it up. CER is required to publish market share for each of the gas and electricity market participants. Add to that we know what the unit price of energy is for each supplier plan (see Bonkers) and it's clear cut that Electric Ireland (ESB's customer supply name) has about 56% of the residential market and the highest prices - with their standard rate being ~4c higher per KWh than the lowest supplier rates.

If the market was operating according to rational consumer assumptions, Electric Ireland wouldn't have any market share (as the electricity they sell is an identical good from the same source, the wholesale market, at a higher price). The fact it's keeping actually market share (and in fact apparently increasing) indicates something else is in the mix - the ESB's reputation.

Birdnuts wrote: »

A lot of "ifs" there.

Any analysis of a worked example for an unimplemented idea has these. The numbers and logic are clear - you can trim it down to 300MW and see similar benefits (in fact, there's two hours @~40 and 300MW less than the peak right before and after the peak).

Birdnuts wrote: »

Everyone knows that the wholesale price of power can vary enormously hour to hour depending on the particular daily wind regime and so has little relevance to end user retail prices.

That's fundamentally incorrect - long term average market price is~60% of the floor on end user retail prices. The rest is made up of distribution/ transmission costs, PSO levy, and supply accounting. On top of that you have profit margin.

Birdnuts wrote: »

My question was about the interaction of DSM with the averge retail energy price over the course of a year when prolonged low wind conditions can occur over days and weeks.

DSM isn't used in those conditions - if you have a prolonged falloff, you run a baseload generator. It's comparing apples and oranges. DSM is used to avoid starting expensive short run generators (or shutting down generators unnecessarily) when possible.

Birdnuts wrote: »

In the UK it has so far been only trialed with big industrial users, for very limited amounts of time and not over an entire consumer base

What do you think Nightsaver is? Consumer base DSM with a very rough way of targeting. It's not a new idea - it's just there's beginning to be the technology to target it better.

Birdnuts wrote: »

This is what is so alarming about the most recent proposal from the empire builders at Eirgrid who seem to think the irish energy consumer is some kind of lab rat they can test out their increasingly daft and costly "theories" on!!

Hang on a second - you realize Eirgrid was spun off from the ESB right? They're the same thing (historical ESB planning/operation) you were describing in glowing terms at the start of your post - just ringfenced* as a separate company so people can't say they're favouring ESB.

You can't really lavish their historical performance with praise on the one hand and complain about them doing the same thing in the modern era. It doesn't make sense.

*to be clear, I don't mean a ringfenced asset owned by ESB group - I mean those assets/functions were moved to a new company along with the relevant staff and maintained the same end owner.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

I asked you for specific examples of such a market and what would be the total cost to the the end user…

And I gave you a simple example of how such a market could be implemented – you’ve chosen to ignore this.

Birdnuts wrote: »

… you then respond by calling me lazy, along with coming up with stuff off the top of your head.

Actually I described your debating as lazy.

And yes, I did suggest a couple of things off the top of my head. Perfectly valid suggestions, which you have completely ignored.

Birdnuts wrote: »

In contrast I provided links to actual studies on the costings of various types of energy generation on an actual working grid.

What’s your point?

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS - coal and gas are not subsidized in this country.

But fossil fuel production and electricity generation are subsidised in many countries around the world. It’s daft to pretend this has no impact on the Irish energy market.

Birdnuts wrote: »

And can you show me any evidence of this government reducing wind supports of various kinds?? I w

REFIT provides temporary support for renewable electricity generation, does it not?

Birdnuts wrote: »

I simply cited links discussing his reservations on recent UK energy policies in relation to wind/solar. The usual suspects proceeded to throw a hissy fit over it.

Questioning the content of an article does not constitute a “hissy fit”.

Capt'n Midnight

Today we got 50% of our electricity from renewables.
So it works in practice despite all the naysayers claiming it can't work in theory.


And the 38% for the month is well above the 30% of nameplate capacity that wind could produce in theory. It is of course because demand varies a lot during the day.

It'll be interesting to see the difference in fossil fuel usage this winter now that the grid can accommodate an extra 5% of non synch generation. So extra power from the same wind farms and the promise of even more in the future.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Today we got 50% of our electricity from renewables.
So it works in practice despite all the naysayers claiming it can't work in theory.


And the 38% for the month is well above the 30% of nameplate capacity that wind could produce in theory. It is of course because demand varies a lot during the day.

It'll be interesting to see the difference in fossil fuel usage this winter now that the grid can accommodate an extra 5% of non synch generation. So extra power from the same wind farms and the promise of even more in the future.

Fascinating - the fact that the past few weeks have been exceptionally windy of course has nothing to do with any of this. The selective nature of figures wind energy supporters use to make wild claims with is amusing to say the least. Like a headline I saw from last winter that claimed(with no clarification) that wind produced 126% of Denmarks energy. It did - for about 2 hours!!

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

Fortunately you don't have to take my word for it - there's the figures to back
it up. CER is required to publish market share for each of the gas and electricity
market participants. Add to that we know what the unit price of energy is for
each supplier plan (see Bonkers) and it's clear cut that Electric Ireland (ESB's
customer supply name) has about 56% of the residential market and the highest
prices - with their standard rate being ~4c higher per KWh than the lowest
supplier rates.

If the market was operating according to rational
consumer assumptions, Electric Ireland wouldn't have any market share (as the
electricity they sell is an identical good from the same source, the wholesale
market, at a higher price). The fact it's keeping actually market share (and in
fact apparently increasing) indicates something else is in the mix - the ESB's
reputation.

Given the vast array of price plans, introductionary offers, bundles that include gas supply too etc. across various companies targeting different consumer groups - its not a very usefull source for the purpose of gauging the costs of our energy policies at a retail level overall. This is why I prefer simple stats like the table below which cuts out all the BS on the subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#/media/File:Electricity-prices-europe.jpg

Going on your logic that Irish consumers are a bit dense, consumers in Denmark and Germany must be right fools!!

Any analysis of a worked example for an unimplemented idea has
these

.

Well thats me convinced

That's fundamentally incorrect - long term average market price is~60% of the
floor on end user retail prices. The rest is made up of distribution/
transmission costs, PSO levy, and supply accounting. On top of that you have
profit margin.

You keep changing the goal posts - my post referred to daily wholesale rates before the likes of PSO,TM costs are included

DSM isn't used in those conditions- if you have a prolonged falloff, you run
a
baseload generator. It's comparing apples and oranges. DSM is used to
avoid
starting expensive short run generators (or shutting down generators

unnecessarily) when possible.









What do you think Nightsaver is? Consumer base DSM with a very
rough way of targeting. It's not a new idea - it's just there's beginning to be
the technology to target it better.

So your lecture on DSM was entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I'm well aware of nightsaver rates etc. They have around for years and have little baring on this discussion as I pointed out earlier, yet you insist on muddying the waters by trotting out a vague version of it in response to my post

Hang on a second - you realize Eirgrid was spun off from the ESB right? They're
the same thing (historical ESB planning/operation) you were describing in
glowing terms at the start of your post - just ringfenced* as a separate company
so people can't say they're favouring ESB.

You can't really lavish
their historical performance with praise on the one hand and complain about them
doing the same thing in the modern era. It doesn't make sense.

*to be
clear, I don't mean a ringfenced asset owned by ESB group - I mean those
assets/functions were moved to a new company along with the relevant staff and
maintained the same end owner

.

Again your muddying the waters - I'm well aware that Eirgrid are now a separate entity. It is their current form and objectives that I have a serious problem with, given their current and planned lavish spending on grandiose wind related grid projects - the cost of which gets entirely dumped on the Irish energy consumer.