"Wind blows away fossil power in the Nordics..."

Xios

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/nordicpower-windfarm-idUSL6N0S530M20141015

I just don't understand why we're not the leading investor/innovators in wind energy, like just look at this wind map and compare the wind off our coasts with the wind on mainland europe and the nordics.

AnonoBoy

I'll leave it to my inner Cork man to answer:

"Ah them wind things, they're fierce noisy like. I'd rather plunder the earth's finite resources first."

Donkey Oaty

The removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.

Karl Stein

The power of the wind, waves and tide on our west coast alone is equivalent to 12 nuclear power stations running at full capacity 24/7/365.






I just made that up.

Irish Steve

The cynic in me says that it's not happening because it's not on the radar of the political establishment, as the return on investment won't be seen in votes at the next election, so they have no interest or awareness of the subject.

The other cynic says that it's because there's another vested interest in keeping non renewable usage high, because the tax take in terms of VAT, and carbon tax on those fuels is helping prop up an increasingly unsustainable system of government.

And yes, the NIMBY aspect of things like wind turbines is another factor, maybe if renewable energy was cheaper than fossil fuel energy, there might be more interest in the option, but while we don't see a "renewable" advantage in the bills we pay, there's no pressure on the relevant people to do anything new or constructive to change the status quo.

josip

Long term thinking in Ireland is done by our children who wonder what Santa will bring them.

Its Only Ray Parlour

Xios wrote: »

I just don't understand why we're not the leading investor/innovators in wind energy, like just look at this wind map and compare the wind off our coasts with the wind on mainland europe and the nordics.

We do get a lot of wind but a current weather chart isn't indicative of the average wind speed across Europe, just so you know.

The west coast of Norway is very windy also.

Xios

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

We do get a lot of wind but a current weather chart isn't indicative of the average wind speed across Europe, just so you know.

The west coast of Norway is very windy also.

That's true, also check out the wind map on the top right. We're in the Red, meaning, cash in now....

Micky Dolenz

Wind is where it's at. Harvest the power of cow farts.

Cool Mo D

Ireland is one of the leading countries in Europe for wind - we are 5th in wind power per person. And only Denmark has more dependable wind power than us, we are perfectly placed to build more.

https://i.imgur.com/8xc6K9x.png

Mad_Dave

Xios wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/nordicpower-windfarm-idUSL6N0S530M20141015

I just don't understand why we're not the leading investor/innovators in wind energy, like just look at this wind map and compare the wind off our coasts with the wind on mainland europe and the nordics.

Not all the windy areas are deemed suitable for wind farms in the various County Development Plans.
There's a serious amount of red tape to get planning permission, funding, a grid connection agreement from Eirgrid, transmission lines built to the wind farm (if required) and getting into the REFIT scheme.
There's a lack of infrastructure to move the wind energy from the West coast (see Eirgrids Grid West interconnector proposal as part of Grid 25).
Our national grid will collapse if you put all the available wind energy onto it.
NIMBYism as already mentioned.
Gas is cheaper.

There's lots of other reasons, some good, some bad.

Iwasfrozen

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

snubbleste

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

They are also illegal in this country

Karl Stein

It was only a matter of time before a nuke-power fanboy would show up.

Barely There

Future generations will look back and snigger at our obsession with wind power - we'll never get back any return from it - the only reason we're building wind farms is because of the tax-breaks it's given.

There may be some future in tidal power, but there's a lot more work to be done to make it anyway economical.

We should have been building nuclear power plants here 40 years ago - of course successive governments have never had the balls to stand up to the uneducated loudmouths who shouted down such sensible proposals.

Mr.David

Nordic power is predominantly hydro driven, not wind.

Wind can never really make up more than a certain % of any country's power generation portfolio.

Nuke is ideal, it just runs quietly at 100% output all the time and absorbs the base-load power requirements for a country whilst wind power can then be used for the variable demand.

Iwasfrozen

snubbleste wrote: »

They are also illegal in this country

That's just a legislation change away.

Karl Stein

Barely There wrote: »

Future generations will look back and snigger at our obsession with wind power

My crystal ball says different. Future generations will look back at the time we built nuke-power stations and think 'how could they have left us such a poisonous legacy'.

we'll never get back any return from it - the only reason we're building wind farms is because of the tax-breaks it's given.

You do know that oil and nuke-power receive massive subsidies don't you? Private industry wouldn't touch nuke-power and only get involved because the costs and risks are borne by the public for generations.

Mr.David

Karl Stein wrote: »

Future generations will look back at the time we built nuke-power stations and think 'how could they have left us such a poisonous legacy'

What poisonous legacy?

Carbon fueled power plants (mainly coal) are estimated to be responsible for 10,000 deaths per annum due to respiratory problems. Thats far far more than nuclear has ever caused.

Also, in terms of waste, are you aware that ALL of France's waste (France is hugely nuclear driven) is stored in a single facility approximately the size of a school gym hall?

The myths surrounding nuclear energy are really astounding.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

well, until we can find somewhere that isn't in or near a residential area, or an area of beauty and signifficance, we won't be building any here. they do cost a bit to build, and no doubt if we were to build any here it would be a government cronie getting the contract to build.

end of the road

Barely There wrote: »

Future generations will look back and snigger at our obsession with wind power - we'll never get back any return from it - the only reason we're building wind farms is because of the tax-breaks it's given.

There may be some future in tidal power, but there's a lot more work to be done to make it anyway economical.

We should have been building nuclear power plants here 40 years ago - of course successive governments have never had the balls to stand up to the uneducated loudmouths who shouted down such sensible proposals.

the "uneducated loudmouths" who would be living near one of them.

Mr.David

end of the road wrote: »

the "uneducated loudmouths" who would be living near one of them.

Surely that is a problem whether you choose nuclear/coal/oil/wind power plants? What makes that specific to nuclear power?

SEPT 23 1989

end of the road wrote: »

well, until we can find somewhere that isn't in or near a residential area, or an area of beauty and signifficance, we won't be building any here.

Leitrim?

end of the road

Karl Stein wrote: »

My crystal ball says different. Future generations will look back at the time we built nuke-power stations and think 'how could they have left us such a poisonous legacy'.



You do know that oil and nuke-power receive massive subsidies don't you? Private industry wouldn't touch nuke-power and only get involved because the costs and risks are borne by the public for generations.

shhhhhhhhhhh. your not supposed to say such aweful things about the perfect private sector, they are thee answer to the worlds ills. oh, wait

Mr.David

Karl Stein wrote: »

You do know that oil and nuke-power receive massive subsidies don't you?

Source?

Karl Stein

Mr.David wrote: »

What poisonous legacy?

You know, the waste that stays radioactive for thousands of years.

Carbon fueled power plants (mainly coal) are estimated to be responsible for 10,000 deaths per annum due to respiratory problems. Thats far far more than nuclear has ever caused.

Ah the old death count non-argument. People die in cars - cars are bad. See how silly that 'logic' is?

Also, in terms of waste, are you aware that ALL of France's waste (France is hugely nuclear driven) is stored in a single facility approximately the size of a school gym hall?

So what? What are the costs? How much does it cost to keep nuclear waste secure for thousands of years? This cost is borne by the public.

The myths surrounding nuclear energy are really astounding.

The propaganda surrounding nuclear energy is remarkable.

Karl Stein

Mr.David wrote: »

Source?

You seriously don't know that every single nuke-power station ever built was a government underwritten project in both the short and long term? Deary me, and here you are arguing the virtues of nuke-power.

Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers.

wikipedia.org

As for fossil fuels:

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.

priceofoil.org

The above figure doesn't factor in the misery caused to populations were access to oil reserves is secured by supporting dictators, despots and war.

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

well, until we can find somewhere that isn't in or near a residential area, or an area of beauty and signifficance, we won't be building any here. they do cost a bit to build, and no doubt if we were to build any here it would be a government cronie getting the contract to build.

That's not a problem unique to nuclear.

Iwasfrozen

I don't see why it matters whether government or the private sector build the plants.

Calibos

The boat has sailed on nuclear Fission. We are better off waiting for Nuclear Fusion at this point. Interesting announcement from Lockheed about a new reactor design they are working on yesterday. If that came off and in the timescale they are talking about then it changes everything. I know Fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years but it looks like there is finally decent progress. Our tardiness in investing big time in Fission or renewables might be a blessing in the end.

http://www.cnet.com/news/lockheed-figures-out-fusion-maybe/

Iwasfrozen

Calibos wrote: »

The boat has sailed on nuclear Fission. We are better off waiting for Nuclear Fusion at this point. Interesting announcement from Lockheed about a new reactor design they are working on yesterday. If that came off and in the timescale they are talking about then it changes everything. I know Fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years but it looks like there is finally decent progress. Our tardiness in investing big time in Fission or renewables might be a blessing in the end.

http://www.cnet.com/news/lockheed-figures-out-fusion-maybe/

Why has the ship sailed on nuclear fission? Every decade nuclear plants get safer as technology improves.

I agree with you on nuclear fusion though, that will be a game changer when (if) it's developed.

Gbear

Calibos wrote: »

The boat has sailed on nuclear Fission. We are better off waiting for Nuclear Fusion at this point. Interesting announcement from Lockheed about a new reactor design they are working on yesterday. If that came off and in the timescale they are talking about then it changes everything. I know Fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years but it looks like there is finally decent progress. Our tardiness in investing big time in Fission or renewables might be a blessing in the end.

http://www.cnet.com/news/lockheed-figures-out-fusion-maybe/

As a small country the economics of it are a bit different.

There's no point in building a 20GW fusion reactor on an island that requires about 10.

A cluster of those small self-contained fission reactors might be the easiest way to replace our fossil fuel usage.

Wind might be part of the solution but it's not economical to base our whole system on it. It requires too much redundancy due to it only having a 20-30% capacity factor, vs 75-90% for nuclear.

Frank Lee Midere

Those fusion reactors could eventually be off grid. One per company or apartment block.

But let's see. Solar is motoring along as well.

Iwasfrozen

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

But let's see. Solar is motoring along as well.

You think that's really feasible in Ireland?

Calibos

Gbear wrote: »

As a small country the economics of it are a bit different.

There's no point in building a 20GW fusion reactor on an island that requires about 10.

A cluster of those small self-contained fission reactors might be the easiest way to replace our fossil fuel usage.

Wind might be part of the solution but it's not economical to base our whole system on it. It requires too much redundancy due to it only having a 20-30% capacity factor, vs 75-90% for nuclear.

Have you not got things reversed (Typo?). Isn't it Fission reactors that are uneconomical to build in the smaller megawatt sizes we'd want. (Even the articles on this announcement are all suffering the fusion/fission typo's) The Lockheed announcement may of course just be another pie in the sky announcement to garner funding but if one for the sake of arguement takes it at face value then these proposed/theorised small 200mw Fusion reactors are exactly what we want. Safe and Clean with cheap near infinite fuel. One in most counties and a few in Dublin and Cork. Decentralised power generation with reduced transmission loss and it even gets the anti pylon crowd onboard because theres no need for high voltage transmission lines anymore because generation is local everywhere.

TBH its so disruptive a technology that it won't be the oil companies trying to slow adoption like the CT nuts assume but the economists. Switching from fossil fuel generation to cheap distributed fusion too quickly would likely be a massive shock to the world financial system. Kinda like how chemo can kill a cancer in small doses spread over time but give the patient the same amount of chemo but in one go will kill them long before the cancer itself would.

It this lockheed reactor design worked and can be scaled like they say then Fusion power will finally deliver what was over promised for Fission. Unlimited energy almost too cheap to meter. Small volume of very short half life(100 years as opposed to 50,000) waste for first gen reactors reducing to none for later generation fusing different elements. Very safe reactor that simply stops if containment fails. Why would anyone even bother with wind or any other renewable if this fusion reactor design turned out to be the real deal.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You think that's really feasible in Ireland?

It is/will be. Newer tech is designed on a much smaller scale than even a few decades ago which indirectly means less need for direct light. More photons can be picked up rather than direct light/heat being needed. There's still a whole lot of innovation to come as well as storage and transport methods develop further and alongside the development of solar.

Specialun

No government over the years have been willing to invest..its that simple

The lot we have voted in yr after yr only know wind power when they fart. There happy out not taking the gamble

Can you imagine how much it would cost to set up a public company for wind power..billions alone in waste of cash

5live

OSI wrote: »

Because every time you try to build a wind turbine you get a flash mob of "not in my back yard boyo" gumbeens.

If they were build near where they were needed most, i imagine the protests would stop. Just build them in the cities where there are no gombeens:cool:

Capt'n Midnight

LOL at the claims for nuclear power.

The UK , who have over 60 years experience with nuclear power , will be paying double the market rate for baseload nuclear power , and that's index linked for decades. And that's a loss leader price to try to pump prime the European nuclear industry, don't kid yourself that we could get the same deal, don't pretend we have anything close to the skills, experience or regulatory structure they when it comes to managing nukes.

A repeat of the 1707 storm would overrun the new Hinckley C site. The UK is spending lots of money climate change proofing it's nuclear sites since most are on the coast.


Meanwhile we got 25% of our electricity from wind last winter. And that's mainly because the grid is limited to 50% of non-synchronous power at any one time.


Fun game - do a search for Reactor Shutdown on google news.

Capt'n Midnight

Mr.David wrote: »

Nuke is ideal, it just runs quietly at 100% output all the time and absorbs the base-load power requirements for a country whilst wind power can then be used for the variable demand.

Actually what happens in the real world is that both wind and nuclear are backedup by idling gas turbines because they can ramp up in seconds.

If a nuclear power plant has to be scramed because of a transformer failure , sensor failure or jellyfish* then you have very short window of time to get it back on line before xenon poisoning means you have to stay offline for at least three days.

Gas is about the only thing that can backup unpredictable nuclear. Korea , UK and Belgium currently have reactors offline for extended unplanned outages. I'd nearly say unpredictable but it's the same old story of nuclear industry cost cutting / mis management.


Gas turbines are cheap , but the fuel is expensive so every watt you can get out of wind results in less fuel to buy. Anyway here we have way loads of gas turbines already.


You can't mix wind and nuclear because the costs of nuclear mean you can't invest in wind too. You can't mix them because nuclear takes hours to change the power output up and down , and even then you need to design a different and slightly inefficient reactor. So even though you can forecast wind 5 days in advance, nuclear can't efficiently follow the load.

Our minimum demand is 1/3rd of peak demand and nuclear can't follow that change or even the difference between night and day



*Korea , UK, Sweden, South Africa, California, Florida and IIRC Japan.

TogCuig

In a nut shell because the leadership of this country are shtone useless. There won't be any significant move from fossil fuel/foreign sources until the alternatives become more financially enticing.
Nuclear would be a good road (in combination with other sources/systems), but could you imagine an Irish run nuclear programme? We'd want to get somebody like the French in to do it for us.

losthorizon

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

We do get a lot of wind but a current weather chart isn't indicative of the average wind speed across Europe, just so you know.

The west coast of Norway is very windy also.

Just so you know - you usually use other alternative sources of power as well.

These can be solar (which are usually most effective when wind power isnt so strong), tidal and wave, hydro power and woodchip. A nation like Denmark is a world leader.

Ireland has the perfect climate for alternative power even better than the Nordics and Scotland.

Re the average wind speed - wind turbines can run at quite low speeds. Its high wind speeds you have to be more careful off.

dxhound2005

Incinerators. I wouldn't object in the slightest if one was opened near me. I like wind turbines, I think they are pretty. I don't like smoky coal.

The future will be all different sorts of technologies. I think renewables is the way to go longer term but what fracking has achieved in America has slowed down the development. I remember not too long ago the frenzy about peak oil. It probably has passed and at the rate oil and gas are being used they will run out at some point.

However the Proboscid Pachyderm in the room is being ignored. The amount of energy being wasted in Ireland and around the world is staggering. Just think of all the lights and televisions which are on now with no need for them. And all the heat being wasted. If there was ever a proper economic crisis that must be the first item on the agenda.

Irish Steve

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Incinerators. I wouldn't object in the slightest if one was opened near me. I like wind turbines, I think they are pretty. I don't like smoky coal.

The future will be all different sorts of technologies. I think renewables is the way to go longer term but what fracking has achieved in America has slowed down the development. I remember not too long ago the frenzy about peak oil. It probably has passed and at the rate oil and gas are being used they will run out at some point.

However the Proboscid Pachyderm in the room is being ignored. The amount of energy being wasted in Ireland and around the world is staggering. Just think of all the lights and televisions which are on now with no need for them. And all the heat being wasted. If there was ever a proper economic crisis that must be the first item on the agenda.

Very true, but as I mentioned, there's zero political interest in doing anything about any sorts of alternative energy, because there's no vote reward as the time scale is too long for our politicians, and they can't live without the obscene levels of tax they get from the present energy systems.

I'd be only too happy to be using alternative energy rather than oil, but it needs to be affordable, and available, and in most cases, it's not affordable or reliably available. Wood pellet is in theory a viable alternative to oil, but try to find a reliable source of bulk supply, it's just not there, partly because there's no incentive to make the conversions required to use it, and the only other alternative, 25Kg bags of pellets is not something that appeals to me at the age I am, humping bags of that weight around is not sensible, and will become less so as my remaining time goes by.

Better insulation would also help, but SEI can't even make its mind up about what's out there now, especially for one of the largest stocks of property, dormer bungalows, they can't get their act together on sorting out making the roof level of dormers draught proof, so there's NOTHING on offer from them, which given the number of dormer bungalows there are in the country is a joke, but I'm not laughing.

Peregrine

Nucular. It's pronounced nu-cular.

Son Of A Vidic

Karl Stein wrote: »

I just made that up.

I'm predicting a long and successful career for you in the Civil Service. A career that will be littered with golden handshakes and that will end with a substantial golden parachute.

Xios

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

This is breaking news from today i believe.

Calibos

Xios wrote: »

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

This is breaking news from today i believe.

Em....1 page back

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92637958&postcount=31

WILL NEVER LOG OFF

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You think that's really feasible in Ireland?

You do know that nuclear power for a country our size is totally ridiculous ? Small plants are too uneconomical and experimental to suggest otherwise

Iwasfrozen

WILL NEVER LOG OFF wrote: »

You do know that nuclear power for a country our size is totally ridiculous ? Small plants are too uneconomical and experimental to suggest otherwise

The United Kingdom has 16 plants, or 1 per 3.75 million people. France has 58 plants or 1 per 1.03 million people, the United States has 100 plants or 1 per 3 million people, Spain has 7 plants or 1 per 6.71 million people, Belgium has 7 plants or 1 per 1.57 million people.

It is certainly not "experimental", "uneconomical" or "totally ridiculous" to have one plant in Ireland servicing 4.5 million people.

WILL NEVER LOG OFF

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The United Kingdom has 16 plants, or 1 per 3.75 million people. France has 58 plants or 1 per 1.03 million people, the United States has 100 plants or 1 per 3 million people, Spain has 7 plants or 1 per 6.71 million people, Belgium has 7 plants or 1 per 1.57 million people.

It is certainly not "experimental", "uneconomical" or "totally ridiculous" to have one plant in Ireland servicing 4.5 million people.

undertake some very basic research

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Low%20Carbon%20Generation%20Options%20for%20the%20All%20Island%20Market%20(2).pdf

reliance on single large projects to deliver future electricity needs can add undue levels of risk, and in smaller electricity systems the sheer size can be difficult to accommodate. In any electricity system enough back up needs to be available within seconds to deal with the largest possible fault – usually breakdown of the largest unit.