Wind farms - ugly truths

ted1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Perhaps fuel price isn't an issue.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/airtricity-was-paid-32m-to-run-power-station-for-just-50-hours-30992601.htmlThat sort of money would cover a lot of smart meters / smart appliances

The plant was designed to run for only 500 hours. So it ran an extra 10% more than planned it's a peaking plant. I covered it in my thesis , it's risky makes sense. If we didn't have the capacity we wouldn't have a stable grid that could meet demands and we wouldn't attract the data centres etc

Fabo

Fossil fuel savings from wind energy reducing over time, the EROI for new wind capacity is falling off a cliff

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2016/05/new-report-gas-savings-2013-to-2015-due.html

L

Fabo wrote: »

Fossil fuel savings from wind energy reducing over time, the EROI for new wind capacity is falling off a cliff

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2016/05/new-report-gas-savings-2013-to-2015-due.html

It's genuinely a pity that he forgot to include the NI generators and Moyle in his analysis. Unfortunately, that makes his figures both broadly unsurprising (new more efficient gas units in the Republic are being used more than the older NI units) and his conclusions meaningless. He basically needs to repeat the calculations for the entire SEM.

EDIT: On a reread, it looks like he didn't realize the two systems were connected and operating as a single market.

The analysis refers to the Republic of Ireland only and does not include Northern Ireland as the two systems are not connected.

Fabo

L wrote: »

It's genuinely a pity that he forgot to include the NI generators and Moyle in his analysis. Unfortunately, that makes his figures both broadly unsurprising (new more efficient gas units in the Republic are being used more than the older NI units) and his conclusions meaningless. He basically needs to repeat the calculations for the entire SEM.

EDIT: On a reread, it looks like he didn't realize the two systems were connected and operating as a single market.

They aren't, thats why they want to build the N/S I/C. Anyway it would make the situation worse if older plant were backing up wind, like in the North

http://www.eirgridnorthsouthinterconnector.ie/media/Volume%202A%20Appendix%201%20Correspondence%20to%20EirGrid%20from%20SEM%20Committee%20(30-4-13).pdf


At
that meeting the Committee articulated its view of the importance of this project as a
critical component of a fully functioning, efficient electricity market on the island of Ireland
and one which will play a significant role in helping to integrate renewable generation in
both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Since then EirGrid and SONI have published the Generation Capacity Statement 2013 -
2022 which shows increasingly tight supply margins in Northern Ireland post 2016 but which
would be mitigated by the development of a second North South interconnector and
you have also advised that as per your most recent studies, under the assumptions
employed, the benefits in terms of reduced production costs and enhanced capacity sharing
which would result from the project's development will be of the order of €20m per annum
rising to closer to €40m per annum in the medium term.
All of the above point to the relevance of the second North South interconnector to the
successful implementation of the policy objectives of competitiveness, sustainability and
security of supply in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and the necessity to advance
and deliver this project, and to not only deliver it but deliver it as a matter of urgency. The
SEM Committee is charged with protecting the interests of electricity customers on the
island of Ireland. To that end the Committee is concerned that the absence of vital
infrastructure is costing customers.

L

Fabo wrote: »

They aren't, thats why they want to build the N/S I/C.

It's a second connection between the two. The reason they want it built is so they don't have to use a bunch of costly operational rules designed around preventing the systems falling over in case of a problem with the current single point of failure (the current NS IC).

In other words, it's a bad assumption - by excluding NI, the fuel consumption, interconnection and demand data he's using are incomplete.

In order to draw value/insight from the calculations he's doing, he needs to use a full set of data (drawing the boundary at the edges of the SEM rather than in the middle of it). He needs to include NI and use EWIC and Moyle as the boundary of his example.

Fabo wrote: »

Anyway it would make the situation worse if older plant were backing up wind, like in the North

It's the opposite scenario for these kinds of calculations unfortunately. The least efficient generators are the ones that will lose market running first - so they're where changes in fuel consumption will manifest.

Fabo

L wrote: »

It's a second connection between the two. The reason they want it built is so they don't have to use a bunch of costly operational rules designed around preventing the systems falling over in case of a problem with the current single point of failure (the current NS IC).

In other words, it's a bad assumption - by excluding NI, the fuel consumption, interconnection and demand data he's using are incomplete.

Nope

the reason they building it is because they have to shutdown a coal plant in NI and they want to import electricity from Ireland, hence they cant do so now proving my original point

In order to draw value/insight from the calculations he's doing, he needs to use a full set of data (drawing the boundary at the edges of the SEM rather than in the middle of it). He needs to include NI and use EWIC and Moyle as the boundary of his example.



It's the opposite scenario for these kinds of calculations unfortunately. The least efficient generators are the ones that will lose market running first - so they're where changes in fuel consumption will manifest.

so if they dont run least efficient generators in NI, then what do they do apart from have a blackout ?

You need to read up on what the ISEM is all about, its to enable NI to import from efficient generators in ROI

L

Fabo wrote: »

Nope

the reason they building it is because they have to shutdown a coal plant in NI and they want to import electricity from Ireland, hence they cant do so now proving my original point

<Snip>
You need to read up on what the ISEM is all about, its to enable NI to import from efficient generators in ROI

You need to do some reading on this mate. We've had an all island market for most of the last decade. It's called the SEM. The ISEM is a new market design intended to bring Ireland's electricity market more in line with the standard EU setup. Same geographic coverage for the two - just a different market structure.

Fabo wrote: »

so if they dont run least efficient generators in NI, then what do they do apart from have a blackout ?

Currently they run a 3 generator rule in NI as well as requiring a portion of system reserve to be held there.

In other words, they run some NI generators for system stability, while the majority of generation on the island is on a cheapest energy basis.

Fabo

L wrote: »

You need to do some reading on this mate. We've had an all island market for most of the last decade. It's called the SEM. The ISEM is a new market design intended to bring Ireland's electricity market more in line with the standard EU setup. Same geographic coverage for the two - just a different market structure.




Currently they run a 3 generator rule in NI as well as requiring a portion of system reserve to be held there.

In other words, they run some NI generators for system stability, while the majority of generation on the island is on a cheapest energy basis.

Facts

#1 NI cant import from Ireland, hence why they need NS I/C

#2 NI have capacity shortage because they need to close their power stations (makes sense)

#3 Ireland has capacity surplus so NI need to import from Ireland.

#4 Including NI, pretty much a separate system at the moment, makes no sense. NI is reliant on its old power stations, couple of wind farms and Moyle.

#5 It makes no sense also because wind farms in NI are not backed up by CCGT in Ireland and vice versa.

I dont have time to argue any further over what are basic facts . The SEM is the same on paper, but in reality until NS IC is separate

L

Fabo wrote: »

#1 NI cant import from Ireland, hence why they need NS I/C

False. Factual version : There is limited capacity to send power between NI and ROI. Source: Interarea Flow constraint

Fabo wrote: »

#2 NI have capacity shortage because they need to close their power stations (makes sense)

True and False: NI has a potential capacity shortfall because new generation isn't locating there to replace old generation which is shutting down.

Fabo wrote: »

#3 Ireland has capacity surplus so NI need to import from Ireland.

True: Ireland and NI together have sufficient capacity.

Fabo wrote: »

#4 Including NI, pretty much a separate system at the moment, makes no sense. NI is reliant on its old power stations, couple of wind farms and Moyle.

False: See point 1.

Fabo wrote: »

#5 It makes no sense also because wind farms in NI are not backed up by CCGT in Ireland and vice versa.

False: See point 1.

Fabo wrote: »

I dont have time to argue any further over what are basic facts . The SEM is the same on paper, but in reality until NS IC is separate

Unfortunately they're not all basic facts. They're mixed in with suppositions which are easily proved false by basic due diligence. Do the due diligence before posting. It'll save us both time and annoyance.

Fabo

L wrote: »

False. Factual version : There is limited capacity to send power between NI and ROI. Source: Interarea Flow constraint



True and False: NI has a potential capacity shortfall because new generation isn't locating there to replace old generation which is shutting down.


True: Ireland and NI together have sufficient capacity.



False: See point 1.



False: See point 1.



Unfortunately they're not all basic facts. They're mixed in with suppositions which are easily proved false by basic due diligence. Do the due diligence before posting. It'll save us both time and annoyance.

For the sake of anyone else reading, please ensure you do your own research on this and make up your own mind.

Here it is from the horse's mouth - Eirgrid (my emphasis in bold)

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/Generation_Capacity_Statement_20162025_FINAL.pdf

The current interconnector between Ireland and Northern Ireland provides a significant capacity benefit, but
it is limited. This means that Ireland must limit its assumed reliance on Northern Ireland to just 100 MW.
Similarly, Northern Ireland has an assumed reliance of 200 MW on Ireland. The commissioning of an additional
interconnector between the two jurisdictions will significantly increase the transfer capability between the
two jurisdictions. Then, the two jurisdictions can be considered as one power system as far as adequacy
calculations are concerned. This will improve overall adequacy in both.

Fabo

Fabo wrote: »

For the sake of anyone else reading, please ensure you do your own research on this and make up your own mind.

Here it is from the horse's mouth - Eirgrid (my emphasis in bold)

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/Generation_Capacity_Statement_20162025_FINAL.pdf

The current interconnector between Ireland and Northern Ireland provides a significant capacity benefit, but
it is limited. This means that Ireland must limit its assumed reliance on Northern Ireland to just 100 MW.
Similarly, Northern Ireland has an assumed reliance of 200 MW on Ireland. The commissioning of an additional
interconnector between the two jurisdictions will significantly increase the transfer capability between the
two jurisdictions. Then, the two jurisdictions can be considered as one power system as far as adequacy
calculations are concerned. This will improve overall adequacy in both.

So it is not one system yet.

And there is a limit between what one side can send over to the rest. So where is there room for increasing flows from say South to North that could actually make a difference to the report ?

Capt'n Midnight

Meanwhile developing countries which can least afford subsidies have had the fastest growth in renewables. Probably something to do with the real-world economics.

http://www.irena.org/News/Description.aspx?NType=A&mnu=cat&PriMenuID=16&CatID=84&News_ID=1446

2015 was a record year for both wind and solar due in large part to a continued decline in technology costs. Wind power grew 63 GW (17%) driven by declines in onshore turbine prices of up to 45% since 2010. Solar capacity increased 47 GW (26%) thanks to price drops of up to 80% for solar photovoltaic modules in the same time period. Hydropower capacity increased by 35 GW (3%), while both bioenergy and geothermal energy capacity increased 5% each (5 GW and 1 GW respectively).

Overall, capacity has increased by roughly one-third over the last five years, with most of this growth coming from new installations of wind and solar energy.

...
In terms of regional distribution, the fastest growth in renewable generation capacity came in developing countries.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Meanwhile developing countries which can least afford subsidies have had the fastest growth in renewables. Probably something to do with the real-world economics.

http://www.irena.org/News/Description.aspx?NType=A&mnu=cat&PriMenuID=16&CatID=84&News_ID=1446

That's because many of these projects in places like Africa are being subsidized by outside agencies like the World Bank etc. as a form of aid - they certainly would not be affordable if these countries had to carry the can themselves. In addition the actual cost of a wind turbine or solar panel has little relevance to the actual cost of incorporating these intermittent sources of power onto a national grid via the subsidies,guaranteed prices etc. wind/solar developers get. Not to mention the ongoing costs of backing up these unreliable power sources, vast extra spending on grid connections for these dispersed power sources etc.

L

Fabo wrote: »

For the sake of anyone else reading, please ensure you do your own research on this and make up your own mind.

Here it is from the horse's mouth - Eirgrid (my emphasis in bold)

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/Generation_Capacity_Statement_20162025_FINAL.pdf

The current interconnector between Ireland and Northern Ireland provides a significant capacity benefit, but
it is limited. This means that Ireland must limit its assumed reliance on Northern Ireland to just 100 MW.
Similarly, Northern Ireland has an assumed reliance of 200 MW on Ireland. The commissioning of an additional
interconnector between the two jurisdictions will significantly increase the transfer capability between the
two jurisdictions. Then, the two jurisdictions can be considered as one power system as far as adequacy
calculations are concerned. This will improve overall adequacy in both.

You're quoting and misunderstanding part of a generation adequacy calculation here.

In other words, if you looked at demand, and looked at the generation in NI along with the chances of generators falling over, this would be the amount of "safety net" you could assume ROI can provide to NI. It's basically a mathsy way of saying "we need to build enough generation in NI to cope should we lose the existing NS IC".

It's not an operational limit on transfers. I actually linked you that a few posts back.

L

Fabo wrote: »

So it is not one system yet.

And there is a limit between what one side can send over to the rest. So where is there room for increasing flows from say South to North that could actually make a difference to the report ?

They're two connected systems with a single market. I linked you the operational rules for each system already - take a look.

As for the rest, the least efficient gas unit will be the last one to be turned on so that marginal dispatch change is quite important for fuel consumption calculations.

Taking a simple thermal unit example:
Lets say NI is operating at ballpark 800-1000MW net demand (reasonable given it's peak demand is ~1700MW).

That's more or less covered by the two Kilroot coal units, and C30 (satisfying the 3 generator rule).

Now increase the demand by 100 MW, your options are basically to either to flow power S=>N, or start one of the remaining less efficient NI units. If you take the S=>N flow, you're using cheaper, more efficient ROI plant. If you don't, you're using more expensive, less efficient NI plant.

That in a nutshell is why you need to include NI in analysis of fuel consumption.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

That's because many of these projects in places like Africa are being subsidized by outside agencies like the World Bank etc. as a form of aid - they certainly would not be affordable if these countries had to carry the can themselves. In addition the actual cost of a wind turbine or solar panel has little relevance to the actual cost of incorporating these intermittent sources of power onto a national grid via the subsidies,guaranteed prices etc. wind/solar developers get.

This nonsense has been debunked time and time and time again:

The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $493 billion in 2014, $39 billion down on the previous year, in part due to the drop in international energy prices, with subsidies to oil products representing over half of the total. Those subsidies were over four-times the value of subsidies to renewable energy.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies

Birdnuts wrote: »

Not to mention the ongoing costs of backing up these unreliable power sources, vast extra spending on grid connections for these dispersed power sources etc.

Ah yes, those pesky “hidden” costs – care to put a figure on them?

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

This nonsense has been debunked time and time and time again:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies
Ah yes, those pesky “hidden” costs – care to put a figure on them?

Can we please play by the rules

subsidies are financial subsidies only.

Oil is net contributor to govt coffers

Wind is net recipient of subsidies

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

This nonsense has been debunked time and time and time again:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies
Ah yes, those pesky “hidden” costs – care to put a figure on them?

3 billion + plus for grid

280m for ds3 testing

1 billion smart meters

1 billion+ storage

1 billion + new fast acting plant

.5bn new interconnector

Etc etc

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

This nonsense has been debunked time and time and time again:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies
Ah yes, those pesky “hidden” costs – care to put a figure on them?

I've posted plenty of links in this thread already regarding these issues which typically you've ignored as they do not correspond to your own views which you continue to aggressively push on this forum. Fossil fuels are heavily taxed in most countries(including Ireland - bar some peat power stations) so the idea that they get subsidies on the scale of wind/solar is obvious nonsense as anyone who has ever operated a motor vehicle in this country knows all too well. Despite the vast spend on wind in this country we continue to relie on coal fired power via moneypoint more than even which says it all really. Same pattern on Germany and elsewhere.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/greenhouse-gas-emissions-rise-in-key-sectors-393935.html


PS: Are you still seriously claiming the dispersed intermittent energy sources like wind do not increase the cost of operating a grid via extra pylon costs etc.??

djpbarry

Fabo wrote: »

Can we please play by the rules

subsidies are financial subsidies only.

Says who? You?

Fabo wrote: »

3 billion + plus for grid

280m for ds3 testing

1 billion smart meters

1 billion+ storage

1 billion + new fast acting plant

.5bn new interconnector

Etc etc

Plucking figures out thin air isn't terribly informative.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fossil fuels are heavily taxed in most countries(including Ireland - bar some peat power stations) so the idea that they get subsidies on the scale of wind/solar is obvious nonsense...

The facts suggest otherwise.

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

Says who? You?
Plucking figures out thin air isn't terribly informative.

oh yea sorry i forgot everything is free in green economics land and oil which collects huge taxes for Govt actually receives make believe subsides from the evil fossil fuel god.

are there any adults at all on the green side to debate with ?

L

Fabo wrote: »

oh yea sorry i forgot everything is free in green economics land and oil which collects huge taxes for Govt actually receives make believe subsides from the evil fossil fuel god.

You realise about half the PSO this year is direct subsidies to a handful of fossil fuel generators, right? As in 104m on peat, 47m on Tynagh gas and Auginish CHP. On a MW to MW basis, that's already a much higher subsidy than what the renewables get.

That's before you get into the whole CPM discussion where there's 500m or so being spent on covering gen fixed costs - which, again, primarily favours fossil fuel generators.

That's just Ireland - the OECD reckons that somewhere between 160 and 200 billion is being spent by OECD countries on fossil fuel subsidy.

But, hey, it's all make believe fun money not like real subsidies ... right?

Fabo wrote: »

are there any adults at all on the green side to debate with ?

There's plenty on both sides and in the middle. Throwing ad hominems out like this is bad debating though.

Sam Kade

Since when was Mr. multi quoter himself promoted to moderator? Must be a serious shortage of mods.


















































Awaits backlash

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

You realise about half the PSO this year is direct subsidies to a handful of fossil fuel generators, right? As in 104m on peat, 47m on Tynagh gas and Auginish CHP. On a MW to MW basis, that's already a much higher subsidy than what the renewables get.

?



There's plenty on both sides and in the middle. Throwing ad hominems out like this is bad debating though.

You need to update your figures

http://www.cer.ie/document-detail/PSO-Levy-2016-17/1074

The documents at the bottom of the link explain the changes. They show that next years PSO levy is forecast to shoot up a massive 35% - all on the back of wind as Tynagh and Auginish will no longer get any support and peat stagnates. With Moneypoint working overtime as I pointed out earlier, it just goes to show what a wastefull black hole wind energy is. Also highlights how the CER again fail to protect the interests of ordinary energy users in this country while wind developers are again the big winners at the expense of everyone else in the economy.

PS: Your OECD link provides provides no break down of their "estimates" though it appears to include common tax arrangements that all companies have access too in a country's tax code - so to claim that such things are merely targeted at the fossil fuel industry is not credible. The facts are that very few countries provide fossil fuel subsidies these days, especially with the sharp fall in gas/oil prices in recent years. Indeed government taxes make up the bulk of fossil fuel costs for ordinary consumers in the vast majority of countries, as motorists know all too well in Irish forecourts

monument

Fabo wrote: »

oh yea sorry i forgot everything is free in green economics land and oil which collects huge taxes for Govt actually receives make believe subsides from the evil fossil fuel god.

are there any adults at all on the green side to debate with ?

G20 countries spend $450B a year on fossil fuel subsidies, study says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies-450b-1.3314291

A main stream media conspiracy against the oil industry I'm sure.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

You need to update your figures

http://www.cer.ie/document-detail/PSO-Levy-2016-17/1074

I linked the current PSO forecast. Your link is the consultation paper for next year - a proposed forecast subject to revision rather than the actual PSO forecast. Still, either way, it doesn't change the point I was making - fossil fuel subsidies explicitly exist in the Irish system.

That aside, it doesn't really say much surprising. There's an increase by about a third in wind, which means a larger renewables pot, as well as a drop in fuel price which means a higher top up payment from PSO to bring them up to their guaranteed price. I'd be surprised if Edenderry does go away though.

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: Your OECD link provides provides no break down of their "estimates"

That's because I linked the speech for brevity - it should have links and names for the actual reports in there.

Macha

Sam Kade wrote: »

Since when was Mr. multi quoter himself promoted to moderator? Must be a serious shortage of mods.


Awaits backlash

[mod] Backlash is here. If you have any problems with moderation, be a good poster and report them, especially when you clearly know you shouldn't be posting this sort of nonsense. [/mod]

Fabo

Rising Costs of Stabilizing Irish Grid

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2016/06/rising-costs-of-stabilizing-irish-grid.html

L

Fabo wrote: »

Rising Costs of Stabilizing Irish Grid

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2016/06/rising-costs-of-stabilizing-irish-grid.html

Reactive power is mostly provided by generators not sync comps.

SNSP stands for "System Non Synchronous Penetration". Not "non synchronous generator".

The link to Padraig's work is a poster presentation - designed as an explanation aide for him standing there talking. You should link one of his standalone papers instead.

Ancillary service payments increased by 1.5m. Overall, the related imperfection cost forecast dropped 38m. Power system balancing is more complicated than just being able to pull out any single component - it's filled with swings and roundabouts where pushing one cost down (like Operational Constraints being reduced) will push another up. If overall they go down, that's a win.

As for the suggested alternatives:

1. Ireland only stopped building hydro when it ran out of places to put it. Find a new location, and it'd be built on in a snap.
2. Biomass doesn't stack up when you do the maths (there's dozens of posts in this thread covering it but in a nutshell, we don't have the landmass to supply more than a tiny fraction of our energy needs).
3. Nuclear is a non-runner due to system size relative to nuclear plant size, public opposition and the fixed costs. Large inflexible plant cause problems with load following.

Solar is actually a fairly good alternative but it looks like it'd need quite a high feed in tariff to work (and wouldn't be synchronous either)