Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Denmark's "power right now" is showing 174 g CO2/kWh
Options
Comments
-
As of 2008 you would need to cover an area the size of Wales to supply 1/6th of the UKs energy needs with windmills, and build and maintain the attendant grid expansion to connect all the windmills that would be required.Nobody's suggesting we "wallpaper" anything.
Only windmills elevate the problems by exposing wildlife to the turbines. Nuclear plants keep their turbines indoors, in a turbine hall. Regarding your proposed "solutions" how can it be verified that they work? How do you propose to regulate and monitor all the windmills to ensure that the increased cut-in speeds and other measures are being adhered to and are effective? Your regulatory regime to monitor this has to protect bats and large birds over very large areas covering a very large number of widely distributed turbines.You keep banging on about this, even though it has been pointed out to you several times that (a) every form of power generation has an impact on wildlife and (b) it is possible to mitigate those impacts.
Solar panels and wind mills produce electricity in a Christmas 2010 type scenario with -17C temperatures and no wind? Please explain, I'm sure this will be good.Of course they will.
Peak demand is in the winter. Peak supply from solar plants is during the summer. You propose to introduce a greater disparity between the baseload plant required at different times of the year. At worst, you will be expecting commercial power plant builders/owners to build and maintain power plants that will be nearly useless and maybe losing money in the summer but possibly beyond maxed out in the winter. More scope for inefficiency.Because nobody needs electricity in the summer? Really?
Solar energy can work to a limited extent where there's a good track between solar output and power demand. The UAE may have lots of demand for air-conditioning. The UAE also has vast reserves of oil, and as such oil wealth, so they can afford to spend enormous sums of money foolishly if they wish.Why is the UAE investing in solar power on such a large scale then?
There's another example: Morocco is building a massive solar farm in its desert. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/morocco-to-switch-on-first-phase-of-worlds-largest-solar-plant
It will cost a total of $9 billion for about 580MW. That's not far removed from the worst estimates of Hinkley Point C, but it will only produce power for 3 hours beyond sunset, and less during overcast conditions.
Well, land is a resource? Steel for power transmission infrastructre is a resource? My plan involves lots of concrete and steel in one place and a small regional distribution grid to connect plants to regional customers. Your plan involves wallpapering the continent with stuff and laying down a lattice-work of continental power lines.How about you produce some figures to demonstrate that nuclear is less “resource intensive”?
Yet the only thing I want to know about what has changed is the one thing no-one is talking about. Why was nuclear cheap in the 70s 80s, but newer plants are having more trouble? Oh and, why has the narrative (nuclear bad, renewables good) not changed in 50 years despite the fact that renewables were even worse back then while nuclear power was arugably more efficent?…is thirty to forty years out of date.
Seriously? It's the Poles fault they can't deal with sudden surges in over supply from Germany? There's nothing wrong with Germany, despite the fact that is the source of oversupplies that it dumps on neighbors cannot use it.No, what you showed previously was that the Polish grid is in dire need of modernising – nothing to do with German energy production.
Yes. If Ireland had been heavily reliant on the European grid, it would have been involved in the 2006 blackout. If Europe becomes more heavily reliant on interconnection, it increases the potential for a regional failure to spread to other parts of the continent.They key word there is “planned”.
No. Think about it. With nuclear plants, most of the infrastructure is on a single site and most nuclear plants have military style protection on-site. The need for transmission lines is also limited because you can site power plants in the same region as the demand they are to supply.You’re using terrorism as an argument against renewables and for nuclear? It’s getting increasingly difficult to take your posts seriously.
You propose to distribute power infrastructure more widely, including dramatically increasing the distribution of and reliance on transmission lines. It would be an easier matter for a terrorist to cause power blackouts by attacking the transmission infrastructure, and with much more of it being relied on, it would be much harder to protect. Europe is getting more dangerous, so these issues need to be considered.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 88972
As of 2015 the London Array, less windy than Scotland or Wales, produced 5TWHr in it's first two years so 2.5THWh per year from 122Km2.As of 2008 you would need to cover an area the size of Wales to supply 1/6th of the UKs energy needs with windmills, and build and maintain the attendant grid expansion to connect all the windmills that would be required.
You could fit 170 of them in Wales which would give you 425TWHr.
1/6th of the UK's electricity use in 2015 was 56KWHr.
As the London Array is offshore it takes, very roughly, 0 Km2 of land in London or even Wales.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 88972
I thought that $9Bn sounded high and yes it turns out you are right.There's another example: Morocco is building a massive solar farm in its desert. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/morocco-to-switch-on-first-phase-of-worlds-largest-solar-plant
It will cost a total of $9 billion for about 580MW. That's not far removed from the worst estimates of Hinkley Point C, but it will only produce power for 3 hours beyond sunset, and less during overcast conditions.
However, Bloomberg (the money people) says that is the total cost for FOUR plants producing a total of 2GW by 2020. Then again economics has never been a strong point for the nuclear (fan) club.
Hinkley C was originally supposed to be on line next year I'd be surprised if it produces more energy than the solar project above before 2030. BTW with the 15% "contingency" Hinkley now has an up front cost of £21Bn ($30Bn) and that's with a front loaded guarantee of double the wholesale rate per unit , index linked for bleedin' ages. I suspect the solar decommissioning may be a tad lower.
So as usual there is no comparison.
Proven deliverable renewables here and now are undercutting the projected costs of the nuclear pipe dream that is barely on the horizon.0 -
Well, as has been pointed out above once again, that’s not entirely true, but anyway, it’s your use of the words “cover” and “wallpaper” I was objecting to. As has been pointed out time and time and time again, land used for wind farms can still be used for other purposes.As of 2008 you would need to cover an area the size of Wales to supply 1/6th of the UKs energy needs with windmills…
I’m pretty sure I’ve posted something like this before, but I’ve no doubt you’ll ignore this once again:Only windmills elevate the problems by exposing wildlife to the turbines. Nuclear plants keep their turbines indoors, in a turbine hall.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993The paper provides two examples: one relates to a calculation of avian fatalities across wind electricity, fossil-fueled, and nuclear power systems in the entire United States. It estimates that wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh. Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million.
Well, by testing them, obviously? And they’re not my proposed solutions.Regarding your proposed "solutions" how can it be verified that they work?
That’s not what you said. You said no matter how efficient solar panels get, they won’t produce power in Ireland in the winter, which is obviously nonsense.Solar panels and wind mills produce electricity in a Christmas 2010 type scenario with -17C temperatures and no wind?
Well, no, that’s not what I said at all. I was responding to your comment that without storage, solar panels are useless, which, again, is obviously nonsense.Peak demand is in the winter. Peak supply from solar plants is during the summer. You propose to introduce a greater disparity between the baseload plant required at different times of the year.
You just said solar panels are useless without storage?Solar energy can work to a limited extent where there's a good track between solar output and power demand.
I’m still waiting for those elusive figures.Well, land is a resource? Steel for power transmission infrastructre is a resource? My plan involves lots of concrete and steel in one place and a small regional distribution grid to connect plants to regional customers. Your plan involves wallpapering the continent with stuff and laying down a lattice-work of continental power lines.
I’ve answered this twice already on this thread.Yet the only thing I want to know about what has changed is the one thing no-one is talking about. Why was nuclear cheap in the 70s 80s, but newer plants are having more trouble?
If the problem is Germany and not Poland, how come none of Germany’s other neighbours are experiencing the same problems that Poland is?Seriously? It's the Poles fault they can't deal with sudden surges in over supply from Germany? There's nothing wrong with Germany, despite the fact that is the source of oversupplies that it dumps on neighbors cannot use it.
Conversely, isolated grids that suffer failures can’t import electricity from elsewhere.If Ireland had been heavily reliant on the European grid, it would have been involved in the 2006 blackout. If Europe becomes more heavily reliant on interconnection, it increases the potential for a regional failure to spread to other parts of the continent.
Hang on a second…You propose to distribute power infrastructure more widely, including dramatically increasing the distribution of and reliance on transmission lines. It would be an easier matter for a terrorist to cause power blackouts by attacking the transmission infrastructure…
If a terrorist, for some bizarre reason, decides to attack a power line, you’re saying that a more interconnected grid is more prone to failure? That makes absolutely no sense. Surely the opposite is true?0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 88972
Hinkley C was announced in 2010 but since then renewable costs have tumbled http://www.irena.org/News/Description.aspx?NType=A&mnu=cat&PriMenuID=16&CatID=84&News_ID=1446Yet the only thing I want to know about what has changed is the one thing no-one is talking about. Why was nuclear cheap in the 70s 80s, but newer plants are having more trouble?
And it's important to remember that renewables will continue to drop in price in the medium term as economies of scale kick in and new technology gets commercialised during the construction phase of any nuclear plant.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.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/17/edf-senior-managers-hinkley-point-postpone-letter-mps-energy-committeeSenior managers at EDF have told MPs that they remain convinced that the French state-controlled group should postpone the Hinkley Point project until it has solved a litany of problems, including the reactor design and multibillion-euro lawsuits over delays on similar schemes
Nuclear isn't cheap. But having nuclear means you can use more coal in your mix instead of gas without increasing emissions*. And coal is a lot cheaper than gas. And decommissioning costs are so far beyond the next election politicians don't have to worry.
*not including the massive carbon footprint of building a nuclear power station, reprocessing, decommissioning and waste repository0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, as has been pointed out above once again, that’s not entirely true, but anyway, it’s your use of the words “cover” and “wallpaper” I was objecting to. As has been pointed out time and time and time again, land used for wind farms can still be used for other purposes.
I’m pretty sure I’ve posted something like this before, but I’ve no doubt you’ll ignore this once again:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993
?
You have to pay a nice bit cash to see whats in that pro wind article - have you read it and can you tell me how they came to the conclusion that nuclear power killed that number of birds??.Also i'd like to know how the notorious altmount pass wind farm in California that has inflicted huge casualties on large soaring birds is somehow of benefit to birdlife?? In the real world there is more and more evidence that wind farms are damaging habitats(especially in the uplands) and displacing/killing rare and protected birds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-36048939
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/00306525.2014.913211
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bulgaria-environment-idUSBRE99G0QM20131017
In any case there is little evidence that wind farms have reduced the need for fossil fuels etc. to any great extent which makes the damage caused by wind developers to wildlife,carbon storing peatlands etc. all the more objectionable0 -
There's another example: Morocco is building a massive solar farm in its desert. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/morocco-to-switch-on-first-phase-of-worlds-largest-solar-plant
It will cost a total of $9 billion for about 580MW. That's not far removed from the worst estimates of Hinkley Point C, but it will only produce power for 3 hours beyond sunset, and less during overcast conditions.
.
And yet if you believe all the speculation in the media with reports of PP's secured for large solar farms etc., the Irish state it appears is seriously considering bankrolling via Irelands's already hard pressed energy users another crowd of developers/speculators via solar subsidies. The idea that such things are a viable economic idea at this latitude when they clearly struggle in much more favourable countries adjacent to the Sahara - just goes to show that the lunatics have taken over the asylum when it comes to energy policies in this country!!0 -
You generally do for articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.You have to pay a nice bit cash to see whats in that pro wind article...
Yes there is, you’ve just ignored all of it.In any case there is little evidence that wind farms have reduced the need for fossil fuels etc. to any great extent...0 -
You generally do for articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
It's one of the bugbears of academia and a major unnecessary cost for universities. Fortunately a lot of authors try to make equivalent preprints or drafts available as well (since they're about as much a fan of paying for journal papers as anyone else). I think this should match up with the paper you linked and be free to download.0 -
Yes there is, you’ve just ignored all of it.
Really?? some stench of hypocrisy from that statement -can you provide a list of power stations that have shut on the back of wind?? Oh and despite large areas of the country being increasingly plastered with wind farm sprawl, Moneypoint last year worked overtime despite a mild, windy winter and a blustery cool summer.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/greenhouse-gas-emissions-rise-in-key-sectors-393935.html
"The greater use of the coal-fired plant at Moneypoint for electricity generation last year (its emissions increased by 20%) was the main factor in the overall national increase in power generation emissions."
.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's one of the bugbears of academia and a major unnecessary cost for universities. Fortunately a lot of authors try to make equivalent preprints or drafts available as well (since they're about as much a fan of paying for journal papers as anyone else). I think this should match up with the paper you linked and be free to download.
Some bizarre conclusions in that study - it appears the authors estimates for bird deaths from fossil fuels are almost entirely made up of vague unproven projections for future climate change. Of course no reference is made to the fact that birds and other wildlife have coped/adapted with sharp natural climate fluctuations in the past or that the climate will continue to naturally change in the future, plus the fact that the 3 main drivers of human induced extinctions today are still illegal killing/over harvesting, direct habit destruction and the introduction of non-native species.
It also ignores the fact that wind farms due to their vast sprawling nature impact a much wider area of habitat than any other form of power generation - particularly given how many are shoe-horned into remaining wilderness area which are often the last refuges for many species. Also they would have us believe that only pylons serving fossil fuel plants kill birds while the vast extra network of pylon and grid projects needed to serve sprawling wind farms that are remote from centres of energy demand have little effect. The figures for nuclear based generation are also rather dubious, based heavily on 2 isolated extreme examples concerning one abandoned sediment pond and one cooling tower that was not even nuclear powered at the time. Indeed the other examples it cited in this area didn't back up their conclusions at all. On the former issue of sediment ponds they of course forgot to include in the figures for wind energy the number of birds killed by landing on the vast areas of poisonous waste holding lakes in China etc. caused by the mining of rare earth metals for wind turbine components. They also admit that the study did not look at individual species level of mortality. A major flaw given that wind farms have a disproportionate kill rate of larger rarer birds like storks, pelicans and eagles compared to other types of power generation. As the examples i cited 2 posts ago show.
But even if you ignore all the above( and I'm sure all the usual suspects will) the fact remains that wind energy has failed to lessen dependence on fossil fuel/nuclear to any great extent as can be seen by the fact that few if any conventional plants have been shut down and demolished no matter how much wind capacity is added to a grid0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 88972
The RSPB reckons climate change is the big risk to wildlife. They've even gone to the trouble of promoting alternatives to carbon intensive electricity. But they haven't included nuclear. Reports with birds flying past wind turbines.
www.rspb.org.uk/energyfutures3.4.1.2 Key ecological risks
There are a range of ecological risks associated with nuclear power. Storing nuclear waste so that it does
not pose a risk to humans or the environment is currently very expensive and requires high levels of
technical competence. Whilst there has been considerable debate over whether nuclear disasters such
as the Chernobyl disaster are beneficial or detrimental to local wildlife (Meeks et al 2009; Møller and
Mousseau 2011), a nuclear disaster is clearly not a desirable outcome, as any conservation benefits arise
from the exclusion of local human populations and economic activity. Under normal operation the
ecological risks associated with nuclear power are relatively low, although will depend on the specifics
of the site. Stringent safety measures must be applied during construction, operation, waste disposal
and decommissioning.
Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water for their cooling systems, and almost all of the
world’s nuclear reactors use water from ecosystems such as the sea or nearby rivers (Bryhn et al 2013).
Water used to cool reactors is then released back into the environment at significantly above ambient
temperatures, which can reduce algal species diversity, alter fish species composition and enhance
water eutrophication (Campbell et al 2009). Species such as the European eel, which is currently listed
as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List, can become trapped and killed in filtering stations (Bryhn
et al 2013). Mining for uranium also entails some ecological risks. Uranium mine ponds can contaminate
groundwater and soil, affecting ecosystems with either high levels of arsenic or radioactivity (Campbell
et al 2009). Habitat degradation and fragmentation can occur as a result of uranium mining activities.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
This is the damage hydroelectric schemes operated by the ESB are doing to EELs in this country - but I guess its ok as it has the "green" energy tag. Again hypocrisy rules among those who push such flawed concepts as a sustainable alternative to conventional power systems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAfM5Lj6tU&feature=youtu.be0 -
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 88972
Remind us again about the effects of commercial eel fishing ?This is the damage hydroelectric schemes operated by the ESB are doing to EELs in this country - but I guess its ok as it has the "green" energy tag.
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Fisheries-Management/eel-management-plan.htmlThe eel fishery will remain closed until 2018. A full explanation for this decision is included in the documents below - Details of the Public Consultation and associated appendices.
Ardnacrusha has been in place since 1929 and it's only affecting eels now ?0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Remind us again about the effects of commercial eel fishing ?
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Fisheries-Management/eel-management-plan.html
Ardnacrusha has been in place since 1929 and it's only affecting eels now ?
The video and commentary I posted came from professional environmental consultants who work on EEL stock management. Your "whataboutery" is therefore rather irrelevant to the point I made which was about the ongoing greenwashing of certain energy technologies.
PS: And its not just EEL stocks that have been damaged by the Ardnacrusha scheme.
https://oldrivershannon.com/2013/04/28/ardnacrusha-fish-pass/0 -
Advertisement