Wind farms - ugly truths

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Cant see even solar aided thermal taking off here ...

No a chance. Global warming will mean even more clouds.
The mean daily bright sunshine at Rosslare is almost 1.9 hours in winter, 5.3 hours in spring and 6.1 hours in summer. And that's as good as it gets.
Solar panels can still generate upto a third of max power in diffuse light.

and I cant really see the esb investing in moneypoint so it can use a fuel thats 3 times the price of its current coal ... if we're going to incentivise biomass production in the future I think i'd rather see it go toward replacing home heating oil or domestically burnt coal rather than burnt in a relatively inefficent converted turf station...

Turf is in a lot shorter supply than coal, there's hundreds of years of coal left.

Nuclear keeps being trotted out - oh,we should invest in nuclear now-cos the next big thing in safer more sustainable nuclear is just around the corner- grand, invest in nuclear when thats ready , not now.

Don't hold your breath. They moved the badgers out of the Hinkley C site back in 2010 and operation date has been pushed back to 2024 at the earliest.

Nuclear allows you to use more fossil fuel while remaining within emissions targets. if they included total life inputs like mining, (re)processing, concrete and decomission and storage the emissions might be a tad different.

Carbon capture and storage may be money points big saviour. Wont be cheap though (probably still cheaper than american wood pellets) , but as it'd probably need a completly new plant I cant see the esb ditching whats there and paid for in any rush...

Might be possible to retro fit

I like the idea of greenhouses full of oil or hydrogen producing algae ponds heated by hot water. But without knowing the mass balance I can't say if it's practical.

Which kind of leaves us where we currently are, base load of dirty coal,quite a few newish combined cycle reasonably efficent gas plants- plenty of nameplate capacity wind generation ( with the costs front loaded,) a small amount off hydro -peat generation about to go off line.. and the peaking plants...
No major change gonna be coming down the tracks so then,,,

The changes will be in the grid being able to handle more wind and interconnector so a reduction in base load and the number of peaks.

As always if someone figures out a cheap way to store electricity then renewables win.

BoltzmannBrain

Just need to hold out til fusion becomes a reality, about 30 years I believe.

monument

BoltzmannBrain wrote: »

Just need to hold out til fusion becomes a reality, about 30 years I believe.

Which is what people have said for the last 30 years or more.

SeanW

Apologies for not responding to this earlier, I forgot about this thread over the Xmas, then the boards DDOSes, work etc.

L wrote: »

Got some figures on that (peer reviewed by preference or reputable newspaper/organization of record failing that)? That's not something I've done much reading on.

One widely quoted study, quoted in this post from Popular Science, indicates an estimate bat kill of more than 600,000, possibly 900,000 in a single recent year in the United States. That's Six. Hundred. Thousand. Each Year. In just one country.
The U.S. let us remind ourselves, is already in extreme danger of the extinction of many bat species because of the White Nose Syndrome (first identified in 2006 and had killed 5.7 million bats by 2012, given by my rough calculations, 950,000 bats each year over each of 6 years), so adding an additional threat on a comparable scale can only be considered obscene and gravely irresponsible in my view.

The figures in Germany are nearly as bad, though somewhat more approximate, in this study quoted on CleanTechnica. It suggests that Germany is killing 250,000 bats each year with windmills. The problem with Germany is so much worse because Germany is smack dab in the middle of key bat migration routes - so it's having an extraterritorial effect on bat numbers in other countries. Combine all of this with the other problems with windmills, the bird kills, the visual pollution, the extreme need for grid expansion to remote mountaintops etc, the sky high cost, the lack of correlation with demand, and as highlighted in another thread, the proven inability of weather based renewables to deliver cost-effective low carbon energy in comparison with other strategies, makes the whole idea seem to me to be misguided at best, at worst ridiculous and bizarre in the extreme.

Edited to add: One estimate puts wind mills as a bigger cause of Mass Mortality Events of bats than White Nose Syndrome. Granted, though the gap is not large and WNS is still a very close second.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

One widely quoted study, quoted in this post from Popular Science, indicates an estimate bat kill of more than 600,000, possibly 900,000 in a single recent year in the United States. That's Six. Hundred. Thousand. Each Year. In just one country.

The article also suggests an easily-implementable solution: increase turbine cut-in speed, because bats don't fly when it's windy.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

The figures in Germany are nearly as bad, though somewhat more approximate, in this study quoted on CleanTechnica.

As with most wildlife climate change is the big killer. Here in Ireland we get more electricity from renewable than coal.

further research found that wind turbines played a comparatively minor role in the death of birds when compared to other energy generation sources

Markcheese

Would have thought it'd be reasonably easy to design studies to examine how bats are affected by wind turbines..
Most sites have a long lead in time so multi -annual studies with bat detectors before commissioning would give a base line .. this could be compared with other similar sites with and without wind farms.. similar studies could be done once the turbines are operational... college research ?

Do we have many migatory species of bat .... and how are bats affected by things like high speed traffic and motorways ?

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As with most wildlife climate change is the big killer. Here in Ireland we get more electricity from renewable than coal.

There is growing concern in the EU about the impacts of wind farms on birds

http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/news/bulgarian-government-condemned-court-failing-nature


Wind farms kill a disproportionate number of larger rarer birds like storks, pelicans etc. The "estimate" in that link of yours for coal and nuclear is frankly bizarre and I'd like to see some evidence to back it up In any case wind power has done little to reduce the amount of coal used in power generation in this country. The same trend is apparent in most other European countries, notably Germany. I think its important too that the share of generation from renewables includes Hydro which tends to be ignored by those who like to claim its all about wind energy.

PS: Only now is the Irish government attempting to carry out a Strategic Environmental assessment of wind. Despite the scale of wind farms already in the country, many of them in close proximity to important upland protected areas

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/energy/en-ie/Renewable-Energy/Pages/Renewable-Electricity-Policy-and-Development-Framework.aspx#

This recent development has almost certainly come about thanks to the efforts of the likes of Pat Swords,local community groups and others who are trying to bring some accountability to this governments planning record on these matters via the courts both here and internationally

Macha

BirdNuts, that link talks about the incorrect building if all sorts of things in a Natura 2000 sure in Bulgaria. To use it to support the claim that there is growing concern about wind farms is a ginormous leap.

The biggest environmental NGO in the UK and Ireland is RSPB and BirdWatch Ireland. They, and their EU umbrella group BirdLife both fully support renewable energy, including wind turbines. In fact, they supported an ambitious target for renewable energy to deliver 45% of Europe's energy by 2030.

Yes, they want policies like bird sensitivity mapping to minimise any impact on birds and their habitats but they recognize that climate change is the biggest environmental threat to birds.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wind farms kill a disproportionate number of larger rarer birds like storks, pelicans etc.

For smaller birds cats are the big killer

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/killer-cats-take-down-billions-of-birds-report-says-1.1312489

Cats may kill up to 3.7 billion birds and 20.7 billion mammals in the United States alone each year, a new study has found.

That means predatory felines are likely the leading human-linked cause of death for birds and mammals, surpassing habitat destruction, collisions with structures such as buildings, and pesticide poisoning

In any case wind power has done little to reduce the amount of coal used in power generation in this country. The same trend is apparent in most other European countries, notably Germany. I think its important too that the share of generation from renewables includes Hydro which tends to be ignored by those who like to claim its all about wind energy.

Oh look it's another variation on the wind is intermittent augment.
Coal is used for base load, but our base load is no longer minimum demand because our grid can handle 55% non-synch sources.

In the case of the UK one could argue that nuclear allows more coal while still staying within the carbon limits, but like Germany they are phasing out coal.
Very, very roughly speaking coal produces twice as much carbon dioxide as gas (plant efficiencies vary a LOT 25%-60%) but costs a lot less. Has anyone done the short term economics of Coal + Wind vs Gas at the same emissions level per KWh ?

BTW here wind produces about an order of magnitude more power than hydro. Pumped hydro doesn't count because it's storage not generation.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

The article also suggests an easily-implementable solution: increase turbine cut-in speed, because bats don't fly when it's windy.

If it was such a good idea, it would have been done a long time ago. It hasn't because increasing cut in speeds would in and of itself cause more problem - the increased cut in speed would make them even more useless and unreliable than they are now. Remember, the land take and other problems with wind mills are so severe that one estimate suggested that you would need to cover Wales with windmills - the whole country - to supply 1/6th of the U.K.s energy needs. That's failing to take into account of course the fact that such production would have no correlation to demand, and in many cases, a reverse correlation.

Now increase cut-in speeds dramatically to keep them below White Nose Syndrome as a mass exterminator of bats - and remember that like Volkswagen with its diesel engines you'd have to watch the turbine owners like a hawk to ensure they don't cheat (how you propose to do that is not clear) - and you'd probably have to double the amount of land used for wind farming, double the amout of metal monsters about the place to get the same total production as before, only you'd have twice as much power being generated half as often as you go from zero to massive supply when the wind picks up to more unusual highs.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As with most wildlife climate change is the big killer. Here in Ireland we get more electricity from renewable than coal.

Funny thing, I keep talking about bats, you keep redirecting to birds. I never said about birds but it seems to be all you talk about. I wonder why?

BTW to balance your cat-bashing, the cat serves an important role in human civilisation - it's thought the first grain farmers kept cats near their grain stores to keep down vermin (rats and mice) cats are still kept as working animals for this purpose to this day, even in Ireland.

Furthermore, noone here is defending coal. I want it gone just as much as you do, only I suggest I have a better strategy replacing it with something other than more fossil fuels.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For smaller birds cats are the big killer

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/killer-cats-take-down-billions-of-birds-report-says-1.1312489

Irrelevant to the point I was making - domestic cats are not a threat to rare, large, soaring birds as I pointed out in my post above:rolleyes:

Oh look it's another variation on the wind is intermittent augment.
Coal is
used for base load, but our base load is no longer minimum demand because our
grid can handle 55% non-synch sources.

In the case of the UK one could
argue that nuclear allows more coal while still staying within the carbon
limits, but like Germany they are phasing out coal.
Very, very roughly
speaking coal produces twice as much carbon dioxide as gas (plant efficiencies
vary a LOT 25%-60%) but costs a lot less. Has anyone done the short term
economics of Coal + Wind vs Gas at the same emissions level per KWh ?


BTW here wind produces about an order of magnitude more power than hydro.
Pumped hydro doesn't count because it's storage not generation.

Coal is still by far the biggest source of power in Germany. Hardly a ringing endorsement for their approach to these matters.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

In any case wind power has done little to reduce the amount of coal used in power generation in this country.

So wind is now being blamed for the continued existence of Moneypoint?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

If it was such a good idea, it would have been done a long time ago.

Really weak argument – couldn’t we say the same thing about nuclear?

SeanW wrote: »

It hasn't because increasing cut in speeds would in and of itself cause more problem - the increased cut in speed would make them even more useless and unreliable than they are now.

Actually, if you read the article that you yourself linked to, you would see that would not be the case. From the study itself:

Relatively small changes to wind-turbine operation resulted in nightly reductions in bat mortality, ranging from 44% to 93%, with marginal annual power loss (≤ 1% of total annual output).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/100103/abstract

If yourself and Birdnuts could actually read the stuff you’re providing links to, it would help the discussion no end.

fclauson

we see way off topic in terms of Bat's etc which was not my original post

but this is more in line with that

take a read

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/capacity-factors-and-coffee-shops-a-beginners-guide-to-understanding-the-challenges-facing-wind-farms/

Markcheese

Good read , but I dont think anyone on here is seriously suggesting going (or even trying to go) anywhere near 100% renewable,
Its all part of the mix ...

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

take a read

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/capacity-factors-and-coffee-shops-a-beginners-guide-to-understanding-the-challenges-facing-wind-farms/

I stopped reading when I got to...

"Renewable-only advocates..."

Not one single person on this thread has advocated a renewables-only system.

So perhaps you could explain what point you were trying to make by linking to this article?

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

So wind is now being blamed for the continued existence of Moneypoint?

You could say so, if wind wasn't put on a pedestal maybe they would have looked seriously at converting it to bio fuel and replanting all the sugar beat fields to willow or similar along with the bogs.

L

ted1 wrote: »

You could say so, if wind wasn't put on a pedestal maybe they would have looked seriously at converting it to bio fuel and replanting all the sugar beat fields to willow or similar along with the bogs.

I'm not sure it hasn't been seriously looked at. The numbers on it just don't work out - napkin math-wise you're looking at about 5% of Ireland's landmass just to keep the 3 Moneypoint units fueled.

fclauson wrote: »

take a read

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/capacity-factors-and-coffee-shops-a-beginners-guide-to-understanding-the-challenges-facing-wind-farms/

I don't like this article so much - it's begging the question by starting from a position that of course renewables are bad and building a strawman to knock down. Outside of that, it's technically incorrect on a number of points* and poorly referenced.

*most notably the problem nuclear has with load following isn't ramping - it's being able to be switched off cheaply and having a high min stable gen, this is why markets with nuclear get negative prices at night time. Additionally, baseload is not what this article thinks it is. It isn't synonymous with themal gen.

ted1

L wrote: »

I'm not sure it hasn't been seriously looked at. The numbers on it just don't work out - napkin math-wise you're looking at about 5% of Ireland's landmass just to keep the 3 Moneypoint units fueled.



I don't like this article so much - it's begging the question by starting from a position that of course renewables are bad and building a strawman to knock down. Outside of that, it's technically incorrect on a number of points* and poorly referenced.

*most notably the problem nuclear has with load following isn't ramping - it's being able to be switched off cheaply and having a high min stable gen, this is why markets with nuclear get negative prices at night time. Additionally, baseload is not what this article thinks it is. It isn't synonymous with themal gen.

5% isn't to bad, it would create jobs, promote forestry, carbon sequestation, energy independence.
How much land did our peat bogs take up ?

L

ted1 wrote: »

5% isn't to bad, it would create jobs, promote forestry, carbon sequestation, energy independence.

It's a pretty huge number (a couple of Dublin's worth for scale). You can assume that any land that could be used is also currently being used for something else though. So it's a question of what it's displacing as well as what it contributes.

ted1 wrote: »

How much land did our peat bogs take up ?

Hard to say. Bog as a whole seems to be about 12000 km2 (judging by wikipedia) but Bord na Mona's landholdings are about 800km2 (about 1%).

ted1

L wrote: »

It's a pretty huge number (a couple of Dublin's worth for scale). You can assume that any land that could be used is also currently being used for something else though. So it's a question of what it's displacing as well as what it contributes.


Hard to say. Bog as a whole seems to be about 12000 km2 (judging by wikipedia) but Bord na Mona's landholdings are about 800km2 (about 1%).

As the least forested country in Europe. It would actually be a good thing. Also forest land can still be used for other uses.

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/growingforthefuture/Sec2.pdf

djpbarry

ted1 wrote: »

As the least forested country in Europe. It would actually be a good thing.

Covering 5% of the country in a single species of tree doesn't strike me as a great thing for biodiversity.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

Covering 5% of the country in a single species of tree doesn't strike me as a great thing for biodiversity.

What ?

Right now 5% of our land area is already covered by Sitka Spruce.
So a bit late to be worrying about bolting that stable door.


Future biomass would probably include multiple species like willow/straw/micanthus(sp)/thinning. Again I don't think we could get enough to run Moneypoint what with wood being valuable for other things 'n all.

Today, Sitka spruce remains the most important tree species in Irish forestry, occupying 52.3% of the total forest estate or 327,000 ha (Forest Service 2007)

In 1928 we only had 890 Km2 of forest left. But biodiversity is increasing.

By the end of the 20 th century, Ireland had accumulated approximately 650,000
hectares of forestry. This represents significant progress from the estimated 89,000
hectares of forest in the country in 1928. In 2006 the total national forest estate
stood at approximately 700,000 hectares, equating to 10% of the land area of the
country.
It is estimated that approximately 75% of the national forest estate is predominantly
conifer, comprised mainly of commercial timber species but also including some
native species such as Yew and Scots Pine. The remaining 25% of the forest estate
is predominantly broadleaf and mixed forest, of which approximately half is
comprised of native broadleaf species such as Oak, Ash, Birch, Hazel, Alder etc.
Wherever new planting takes place, native seed is used as much as possible.
Broadleaf planting is becoming increasingly important in recent years, with 30% of
the area being planted each year accounted for by broadleaf species.

Jim Martin

We got one helluva lot of catching up to do so far as diversity of tree planting is concerned! If only there had been a good mix of broadleaf/conifers planted 90 yrs ago, we would now be reaping the benefit with high quality wood available for a number of uses (& not just for burning) & the benefits for biodiversity would have been considerable - now we have to wait another 90 yrs to reap those benefits - just goes to prove how short-sighted planning with supposedly quick return profits is just one big load of baloney!

SILVAMAN

Birdnuts wrote: »

There is growing concern in the EU about the impacts of wind farms on birds

http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/news/bulgarian-government-condemned-court-failing-nature


Wind farms kill a disproportionate number of larger rarer birds like storks, pelicans etc.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/energy/en-ie/Renewable-Energy/Pages/Renewable-Electricity-Policy-and-Development-Framework.aspx#

Yes, west Clare is a haven for pelicans and storks, I believe

Capt'n Midnight

3 Ways to Keep Bats Away from Wind Turbines http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-ways-to-keep-bats-away-from-wind-turbines/

During nights from July to October in 2008 and 2009, operators shut down the turbines when wind speeds were below 6.5 meters per second. As a result, bat deaths were reduced by 44 to 93 percent, with less than 1 percent annual power loss.
...
Ultrasonic “boom boxes” that emit continuous high-frequency sounds from 20 to 100 kilohertz deter bats from getting too close to turbines by interfering with their echolocation.
...
UV light is not discernible to humans, but many bat species are sensitive to it, so several researchers and companies are studying how to use the light to keep bats away from turbines.

Cat attacks are one of the most common causes of bat casualties.
http://www.bats.org.uk/publications_download.php/1159/Cats_and_Bats_final_option_1.pdf

Bat Carers estimate that over 30% of bats they rescue have
been attacked by cats. 1
Only 14% of bats injured by cats are released. Over half
(56%) do not survive a cat attack and 30% cannot be returned
to the wild.

Markcheese

I'm not sure I get the convert moneypoint to biofuel logic , moneypoint isnt particularly efficent even as coal stations go ... I think i'd be investing in a much more efficent coal burning plant maybe with provision for carbon capture at a later date,
And burning domestically produced wood and wood pellets in homes as a replacement for coal / oil and maybe natural gas would likely get a lot more bang for your carbon buck - than burning it in an old turf burning plant ...

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the convert moneypoint to biofuel logic

The logic behind Moneypoint is very simple. Coal is cheap and easily dispatchable within the 5 day wind forecast. Moneypoint is also needed for grid stability.

Biomass would be more expensive and IMHO would be better suitable for weaning the peat plants off peat.

BTW This week the Republic got 45.29% of electricity from renewables and 12.43% from coal. Yes it's a warm winter but still...

Markcheese

Thanks capn , I get / got the reason for money point as is ... especially from a cost and energy security position...
It's the bio fuel bit that i'm at odds with