Arguments against windfarms/pylons

ted1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's 600,000,000 reasons why you might be wrong

Of course they aren't ready to displace all other generators, otherwise everyone would already be using them

Let's see what actually happens...

Mrtayto27

Brian? wrote: »

It's obviously more economically viable to build in the midlands. Hence the decision by a private company to build there.

Can't see how it's economically viable to build in the Irish midlands than the Irish east coast or off the isle of man or Jersey.

ted1

Mrtayto27 wrote: »

Can't see how it's economically viable to build in the Irish midlands than the Irish east coast or off the isle of man or Jersey.

The licences have been handed out for the lots of suitable locations eg the kish bank. It's also much cheaper to build on land than at sea, so access to capital is easier.

Capt'n Midnight

Brian? wrote: »

Electricity can be stored in a myriad of ways. Batteries being the simplest. Pumped water storage has been used in Ireland since the 50s at Turlough hill.

Storage is very expensive at present. To build Turlough Hill they removed 2.5 million tonnes of rock from a mountain

actually it's 40 years and you can go on a tour
https://www.esb.ie/main/education/Turlough-Hill-40-years.jsp


Batteries have a finite life. For most technologies the energy you get out of battery over it's life may not offset the energy used to make the batteries. One option is to cut out the middle man and instead of making re-chargable batteries you just use Aluminium Air batteries and recycle them. Iceland exports renewable energy as aluminium.

Mrtayto27

ted1 wrote: »

The licences have been handed out for the lots of suitable locations eg the kish bank. It's also much cheaper to build on land than at sea, so access to capital is easier.

Agreed that it may be cheaper to build on land than out to sea , but this farm will still have to export it's energy across land and sea to reach it's destination, no where in Europe is permitting turbines to be built at this height , so why build them in Ireland solely to export energy to the UK. If the UK needs,the wind energy so badly build the farms in the English , Welsh or Scottish countryside,
Why is it not viable to build turbines up the Dublin Wicklow mountains , if our capital needs energy so badly.

oppenheimer1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actual measured figures from Eirgrid / UK National Grid show that wind produces 1,000 times as much energy needed to cater for unpredicted drops in wind.

Really.

I sick of saying this but...
Stopping and starting causes a lot more turbine wear than ramping up / down.
All the open cycle gas turbines on our grid run at 2/3rds power so they can ramp up if needed with minimal O&M costs - no quick start because they are already up to speed.
If you've ever been on an aeroplane you may be familiar with the way they can accelerate on take off.

The grid is setup to respond within 15 seconds , wind is predictable 5 days in advance.


Nuclear ?
Nuclear is capital intensive.
Hinkley C will cost 16Bn for 3.2GW ,not counting a £17Bn public subsidy
each unit will cost 9.25p (twice the wholesale rate)
it won't be ready until 2023 at the earliest
it won't be carbon neutral until years after that

and that's if everything goes to plan and there are no hiccups
if we have a repeat of the flood of 1707 it will be Fukushima all over again
if the demand for uranium increases such that granite ores have to be used it may never be carbon neutral
most UK nuclear power stations are close to the sea and will need £'s spent on flood defence because of global warming. Calder Hall AKA Windscale AKA Sellafield clean up will cost £100Bn and rising in total


just google news for nuclear shutdown
https://www.google.ie/search?q=nuclear+shutdown&tbm=nws
there's only 435 reactors worldwide so you will see a sizeable % there anytime , and remember a political shutdown is still a shutdown


Nuclear can be safe, reliable, economic but you can't have all three. ( Sometimes you can't have any. )

Naval reactors have been used reasonably safely and reliably by US, UK and France for over 60 years now. None of these have been commercialised.

Breeding fuel in multiple reactors has been going on for over 70 years. There still aren't any breeder reactors that could produce enough fuel for a second one, so don't expect Thorium any time soon. ( It's been tried in at least 4 full scale "commercial" reactors )

You may be sick of saying what you say but you didn't really address my point. It doesn't really matter that we can predict wind up to 5 days in advance, the problem with wind is it's intermittent nature. If we were to solely rely on wind for electric power (granted it's an extreme example), what would happen if a high pressure system sat on Ireland and the UK for two weeks?

The real problem with wind is that it has to be backed up megawatt for megawatt by conventional generation, with the associated capital cost. Open cycle has turbines are quick to ramp up as you say but they're extremely inefficient. Combined cycle turbines which are far more efficient take days to get going. The co2 you save on a windy day could easily be lost on a calm day.

The other issue is economic. If you have all this installed capacity and power companies want to generate, as an idle turbine makes no money, they will generate and under cut wind. Or you create the perverse situation of paying power companies not to generate.

TheBegotten

I have to admit, Turlough Hill is only of the coolest things ever engineered in Ireland. A lot of people are saying tidal, but energy efficiency with tidal is appalling. Bouy goes up, bouy goes down, minimal energy increase unless the bouy is huge. Tidal energy would require a huge initial investment for very inefficient generation. I've also spoken to people who have lived and worked in close proximity to windmills of varying sizes - there's a massive 50m blade one down in either Little Island or Ringaskiddy, I can't recall which - and they've all said that if it's running properly you should only hear the swish of the blades from the ground.

TheBegotten

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You may be sick of saying what you say but you didn't really address my point. It doesn't really matter that we can predict wind up to 5 days in advance, the problem with wind is it's intermittent nature. If we were to solely rely on wind for electric power (granted it's an extreme example), what would happen if a high pressure system sat on Ireland and the UK for two weeks?

The real problem with wind is that it has to be backed up megawatt for megawatt by conventional generation, with the associated capital cost. Open cycle has turbines are quick to ramp up as you say but they're extremely inefficient. Combined cycle turbines which are far more efficient take days to get going. The co2 you save on a windy day could easily be lost on a calm day.

The other issue is economic. If you have all this installed capacity and power companies want to generate, as an idle turbine makes no money, they will generate and under cut wind. Or you create the perverse situation of paying power companies not to generate.

That's only assuming the generators aren't owned by the power companies, which will find it cost prohibitive to use expensive fuel to generate cheap power. That's really a non issue. And furthermore, we're connected to the rest of Europe via the UK. It would be more expensive than having a domestic back-up, but even in that situation we won't run out of electricity. Remember that we currently generate enough to power the country - those plants will not all be abandoned at once.

ted1

TheBegotten wrote: »

That's only assuming the generators aren't owned by the power companies, which will find it cost prohibitive to use expensive fuel to generate cheap power. That's really a non issue. And furthermore, we're connected to the rest of Europe via the UK. It would be more expensive than having a domestic back-up, but even in that situation we won't run out of electricity. Remember that we currently generate enough to power the country - those plants will not all be abandoned at once.

Momeypoint I'd nearing end of life and for security of supply we can not rely on interconnecters that's way each year they look for the BNE ( best new entry) and pay out 75 euro per kwh to have a plant that is designed to run for no more than 500 hours a year.

Tail Docker

Mrtayto27 wrote: »

Can't see how it's economically viable to build in the Irish midlands than the Irish east coast or off the isle of man or Jersey.

Bono had a sh1t fit when they proposed building it on the East Coast and when they proposed building it in the Midlands, Richie Kavanagh had a sh1t fit.

A meeting was organised and they decided that they'd rather p1ss off Richie.

ted1

Tail Docker wrote: »

Bono had a sh1t fit when they proposed building it on the East Coast and when they proposed building it in the Midlands, Richie Kavanagh had a sh1t fit.

A meeting was organised and they decided that they'd rather p1ss off Richie.

This will be directly across from Bonos house and in clear site of his recent extension and balcony

http://www.dublinarray.com

It has GATE access and is moving along.

Educate yourself before making silly comments

BeerWolf

mad muffin wrote: »

Remind me again why they aren't erected offshore?

They're a hazard to flying fish!

Maphisto

Brian? wrote: »

Have you any idea of the capital
Cost of moving all the present generation capacity off shore?

"Proble solved"? What's the problem exactly. Someone needs to define the actual problem with wind power and not touchy feely stuff.

I'm all for it, if it saves resources and as the country would actually make some money by selling power to the UK - Bingo.

I did read though somewhere on here that because you couldn't rely on the wind, you couldn't take conventional generation off line. So any wind power had to be additional.

I'm not a scientist - bet I needed to point that out - but I also read that the average turbine would not produce the energy it took to build it in its lifetime.

Brian?

Maphisto wrote: »

I'm all for it, if it saves resources and as the country would actually make some money by selling power to the UK - Bingo.

I did read though somewhere on here that because you couldn't rely on the wind, you couldn't take conventional generation off line. So any wind power had to be additional.

I'm not a scientist - bet I needed to point that out - but I also read that the average turbine would not produce the energy it took to build it in its lifetime.

You may have read that, but your source was flat wrong.

Brian?

Mrtayto27 wrote: »

Can't see how it's economically viable to build in the Irish midlands than the Irish east coast or off the isle of man or Jersey.

I haven't see the financials on it myself. I'm just assuming they're sound because several companies wanted to pay a lot of money for the licence.

Brian?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Storage is very expensive at present. To build Turlough Hill they removed 2.5 million tonnes of rock from a mountain

actually it's 40 years and you can go on a tour
https://www.esb.ie/main/education/Turlough-Hill-40-years.jsp


Batteries have a finite life. For most technologies the energy you get out of battery over it's life may not offset the energy used to make the batteries. One option is to cut out the middle man and instead of making re-chargable batteries you just use Aluminium Air batteries and recycle them. Iceland exports renewable energy as aluminium.

Haven't heard of Al-air batteries before. Thanks, will look them up.

Renewable storage is the key to the success of renewable energy in Ireland. We have vast resources, we just need to learn to harvest them.

Wind everywhere.
Tidal along the east coast
Wave along the west coast.

The Diabolical Monocle

catallus wrote: »

Absolute monstrosities that are fire hazards, visually and aurally polluting, and lethal for birds.

There has to be a better way.

I can't understand why they can't harness tidal power in this country, we're made for it!

Yes ... Birds.

Maphisto

Brian? wrote: »

You may have read that, but your source was flat wrong.

So the opposite is true?

Brian?

Maphisto wrote: »

So the opposite is true?

Wind turbines do produce more energy in their lifetime than it takes to produce them. The amount of time it takes depends on the turbine type obviously.

ted1

Brian? wrote: »

Wind turbines do produce more energy in their lifetime than it takes to produce them. The amount of time it takes depends on the turbine type obviously.

And location.

oppenheimer1

TheBegotten wrote: »

That's only assuming the generators aren't owned by the power companies, which will find it cost prohibitive to use expensive fuel to generate cheap power. That's really a non issue. And furthermore, we're connected to the rest of Europe via the UK. It would be more expensive than having a domestic back-up, but even in that situation we won't run out of electricity. Remember that we currently generate enough to power the country - those plants will not all be abandoned at once.

You cannot depend on importing power since weather systems tend to affect western Europe as a whole, and your alternative is to maintain aging inefficient generators. To dismiss the concerns outlined as a non issue only slows your complete lack of understanding regarding power generation.

Wind does have a place in the energy mix but not beyond 25%

Zen65

catallus wrote: »

Tidal Power is the way to go.

Great idea! Let's all wait for 20 years until there's enough tidal power installed to make enough electricity for us.

:rolleyes:

Tidal and wave have been spoken about for decades, but there are no generators operating on a commercial basis anywhere in the world. If there were, and if they were reliable, the equity markets would go into a spin from all the people investing in the technology.

But's that's a long way off.

And folks, I have a strong sense of deja-vu here . . . . did we not debate the pylons and wind-farms just a few threads ago?

catallus

Zen65 wrote: »

Great idea! Let's all wait for 20 years until there's enough tidal power installed to make enough electricity for us.

:rolleyes:

You know what? You're right! Let's sit on our arses like we usually do and let someone else develop their infrastructure abroad so we son't have to do anything for ourselves and then in 20 years time let's all complain that we should have done it years ago!

Capt'n Midnight

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You cannot depend on importing power since weather systems tend to affect western Europe as a whole, and your alternative is to maintain aging inefficient generators. To dismiss the concerns outlined as a non issue only slows your complete lack of understanding regarding power generation.

Wind does have a place in the energy mix but not beyond 25%

In theory.

In reality we got 25% of our electricity from renewables this winter and that's with a grid limited to a maximum of 50% asynch generation.

Future grid improvements will increase further.



Regarding the FUD about wind not blowing all the time , we already have lot's of dispatchable generation. More than enough to provide redundancy even at record system demand.

Let say again this already exists. We don't need to build fossil fuel plant to backup wind. It already exists.

What happens is that when wind blows you save fossil fuel by ramping down or turning off the gas and other fossil fuel power plants.


There is an argument that having gas plants being used less means the cost per unit from a gas plant goes up. This is like arguing that if you cycle to work on dry days then it costs more to drive in on the other days because the cost of insurance and motor tax are spread over less miles, while completely ignoring t he overall savings on petrol.

And besides we have a deregulated energy market and it's not as if wind happened overnight. And also fossil fuel gets far more subsidies than wind does.

Capt'n Midnight

Mrtayto27 wrote: »

Can't see how it's economically viable to build in the Irish midlands than the Irish east coast or off the isle of man or Jersey.

It's pretty much the same you just bolt the tower to the plinth.

Pouring the concrete for the plinth is a tad easier in the midlands.

oppenheimer1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In theory.

In reality we got 25% of our electricity from renewables this winter and that's with a grid limited to a maximum of 50% asynch generation.

Future grid improvements will increase further.



Regarding the FUD about wind not blowing all the time , we already have lot's of dispatchable generation. More than enough to provide redundancy even at record system demand.

Let say again this already exists. We don't need to build fossil fuel plant to backup wind. It already exists.

What happens is that when wind blows you save fossil fuel by ramping down or turning off the gas and other fossil fuel power plants.


There is an argument that having gas plants being used less means the cost per unit from a gas plant goes up. This is like arguing that if you cycle to work on dry days then it costs more to drive in on the other days because the cost of insurance and motor tax are spread over less miles, while completely ignoring t he overall savings on petrol.

And besides we have a deregulated energy market and it's not as if wind happened overnight. And also fossil fuel gets far more subsidies than wind does.

That would be fine if power plants had an infinite lifespan, but they don't. I'll say it again, evey megawatt of wind power has to be backed up by conventional generation. So the true cost of wind is it's own cost in addition to the cost of providing inefficient redundancy. Wind can only provide peak power, where it provides an alternative to ramping up inefficient has turbines.

Secondly it is not possible to generate base load by wind since it lacks reliability and base load must be generated all the time. It is the most efficient turbines that supply this power since they are optimised to run steady all the time. Wind and backup sources will not achieve this sort of cost efficiency in the medium term at least.

As I said, wind has its place, but it is limited and it is not the magic bullet for our own energy security issues.

Grayson

Brian? wrote: »

It's obviously more economically viable to build in the midlands. Hence the decision by a private company to build there.

Plus there's big, flat, desolate areas there. All the bogs which we destroyed are now just sitting there and because they were once bogs, there are feck all people living there.

gctest50

Grayson wrote: »

Plus there's big, flat, desolate areas there. All the bogs which we destroyed are now just sitting there and because they were once bogs, there are feck all people living there.

Great - no-one to complain about the noise

Its good that "we" waited, the new gen ones are way taller and better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjqhT8RF_dk

Capt'n Midnight

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That would be fine if power plants had an infinite lifespan, but they don't. I'll say it again, evey megawatt of wind power has to be backed up by conventional generation. So the true cost of wind is it's own cost in addition to the cost of providing inefficient redundancy. Wind can only provide peak power, where it provides an alternative to ramping up inefficient has turbines.

If you divide the annual energy from fossil fuel generators by the nameplate rating it will give you their capacity factor.

Hint - the number is a lot lower than you think.

Gas generators don't run 24/7 and they don't run at full power and we have redundancy.

Peak demand is about 3 times minimum demand.

At minimum demand we don't use 75% of the installed dispatchable generating capacity.

Thing about gas is that the capital costs are low, lead time for ordering is low. It's the fuel that's expensive.

Recent Gas Power stations here have been well below €1/Watt to build (roughly 1/10 the cost of Nuclear)

Yes stop/start puts undue wear on gas turbines and that's why they ramp up/down to match demand rather than turn them on/off.

Secondly it is not possible to generate base load by wind since it lacks reliability and base load must be generated all the time. It is the most efficient turbines that supply this power since they are optimised to run steady all the time. Wind and backup sources will not achieve this sort of cost efficiency in the medium term at least.

As I said, wind has its place, but it is limited and it is not the magic bullet for our own energy security issues.

I'm intrigued by your notion of "cost efficiency" in a world where fossil fuel prices have an upward trend and wind/solar have a downward one

Also "base load" may become outdated. Since wind is predictable days in advance you can rely on it to replace a lot of fossil fuel.

Unless someone invents cheap storage there is no magic bullet. And that include fossil fuel as it's become too expensive to use when there are cheaper alternatives.

_Redzer_

Whatever fills the gap until nuclear fusion is perfected, because that is the holy grail of energy for us.

It's still about 70 years off becoming mainstream, but nobody can argue it's the most efficient way of energy production known to our species so far.