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

hoo-haha about wind turbines in Kerry.....

  • 19-12-2018 11:51am
    #1
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭


    I just quickly read through an article on Breakingnews.ie.
    About people including some low level politicians complaining 'bout the number/size/proximity to dwellings/planning process/permissions granted/quality of life/blight on landscape/tourism inhibitor...etc. of wind turbines in Kerry spec. North West Kerry and/or Geneeveguille.
    According to article there are circa 317 turbines in Kerry with a further 38 in construction.
    Has anybody got stats./good guess for the output of the 317 or potential output of the 317+38 turbines versus the total consumption of electricity in kerry?
    Or educated guesses on total consumption of Kerry and how and what size and number of WTs would be needed to match that yearly??
    (average across year not concerning problem of availability ).

    On a side note If Kerry society really want to lessen or stop unsustainable energy use , pollution etc.. You know what really are they complaining about. I know a perfect WT System building model would be to fully include the community esp. with monetary shares, but its not a perfect world..far from it.


«13

Comments

  • #2
    unkel
    Registered Users Posts: 64,681 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    lalababa wrote: »
    Has anybody got stats./good guess for the output of the 317 or potential output of the 317+38 turbines versus the total consumption of electricity in kerry?

    I can't see how those stats are relevant. Kerry turbines for Kerry people?

    Wind turbines in Ireland provide up to 75% of total electricity in Ireland at night and even during the day, I regularly see figures of over 60%

    The turbines in Kerry play an important part in this, like any other turbines in the country


  • #3
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    There are turbines at the top of my road.Probably 300 of the 317 .
    When looking at houses in the area I didn't buy with a turbine the far side of some trees.
    They don't bother me being about 3km from them. They look nice on the skyline.


  • #4
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Wind is providing around 22 % of electricity consumed but it varies a lot. It can be a lot more or a lot less at any one time.


  • #5
    unkel
    Registered Users Posts: 64,681 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Wind is providing around 22 % of electricity consumed but it varies a lot. It can be a lot more or a lot less at any one time.

    Wind has provided 44% of electricity consumed over the past 30 days. Have a look at the figures by playing with the settings here:

    Linky


  • #6
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    unkel wrote: »
    Wind has provided 44% of electricity consumed over the past 30 days. Have a look at the figures by playing with the settings here:

    Linky
    Sure but it has been very windy. It was 22% over the course of last year.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    unkel
    Registered Users Posts: 64,681 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    Last year as in 2017? Where do you get those figures?


  • #8
    KCross
    Registered Users Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Sure but it has been very windy. It was 22% over the course of last year.

    That's about right.... Jul '17 - Jul '18 averaged about 27% over the 12 months.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108779271&postcount=194


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    27% is very good considering how few we have.
    We could easily do 270% if we tried. We've got the best wind in Europe outside of Scotland.


  • #10
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Sir Liamalot wrote: »
    27% is very good considering how few we have.
    We could easily do 270% if we tried. We've got the best wind in Europe outside of Scotland.
    I think you are out of date. We have at least 264 wind farms already in the Republic. We certainly could export some wind energy but we will never be totally self sufficient in wind energy.


  • #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    My information is based on the density of deployment I see everyday in Éire compared to the mainland.
    Self-sufficiency is doable with combined sources and practical grid storage solutions.

    key-figure-2.jpg

    Bare in mind we have probably over twice the wind resource Germany has.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Sir Liamalot wrote: »
    My information is based on the density of deployment I see everyday in Éire compared to the mainland.
    Self-sufficiency is doable with combined sources and practical grid storage solutions.

    key-figure-2.jpg

    Bare in mind we have probably over twice the wind resource Germany has.
    Main land what? Latin America? We have good potential for wind but it is difficult to be self sufficient anywhere in the world with wind. Ireland and Germany have very similar MW per capita.


  • #13
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    An_Toirpin wrote: »

    Main land what.

    THE Main land


  • #14
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    I think you are out of date. We have at least 264 wind farms already in the Republic. We certainly could export some wind energy but we will never be totally self sufficient in wind energy.

    ?

    Sury we can build ten times that number, particularly offshore.


  • #15
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Main land what? Latin America? We have good potential for wind but it is difficult to be self sufficient anywhere in the world with wind. Ireland and Germany have very similar MW per capita.

    With battery technology now catching up with generation tech. We have to start copping on and not wasting the wind resources.


  • #16
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    gctest50 wrote: »
    THE Main land
    Mainland Ireland?
    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    ?

    Sury we can build ten times that number, particularly offshore.
    Extremely expensive and probably still not self suficient. If we will need that many turbines, gas or nuclear would be greener.

    listermint wrote: »
    With battery technology now catching up with generation tech. We have to start copping on and not wasting the wind resources.
    I agree but it won't be enough, especially with the massive increase in electricity demands that are coming down the line.


  • #17
    nogoodnamesleft
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭nogoodnamesleft


    listermint wrote: »
    With battery technology now catching up with generation tech. We have to start copping on and not wasting the wind resources.

    Battery storage is already used in the commercial UK electricity market but not with wind turbines, there is limited projects attached to solar farms but their capacity factor is far less than wind (<8% so 92% they are doing nothing) .There are some wind turbines in the UK but planning permission is more difficult to attain due to more population density and the wind turbines need a min wind speed for it to be profitable to generate (overcome electrical losses, wear and of course the energy traders also need to get a satisfactory price for the turbine to operate).

    At present the batteries are used to charge at night time (cheaper kWh) and discharge at peak demand. The issue with renewable is that it is intermittent and alternative generation sources are required for contingency (fast operating reserve employing fossil generation such as gas turbine and diesel generation sets). Its not all about just getting the asset on the network either, the technology is somewhat new on a large commercial scale dealing with distribution voltages The IEEE released a white paper last year in order to determine a standard for it. There is also some questions regards the longevity of some of the battery technology with their charge and discharge cycles and how that affects their asset life.

    The roll out of wind and solar projects has been accelerated as of late due to the Irish capacity auctions as the Irish state is behind their target required for 2020.


  • #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The mainland is Europe/Russia/India & Asia.
    Formerly known as Pangea.

    Chemical batteries can't cut it for grid level storage, looking past the hype we need to develop flow batteries and mechanical storage.

    MW per person isn't significant. We have an abundant clean power resource that's underdeveloped with phenomenal off-shore potential.

    We could be serious contenders in the power export business if we braoden our horizons.


  • #19
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Sir Liamalot wrote: »
    The mainland is Europe/Russia/India & Asia.
    Formerly known as Pangea.

    Chemical batteries can't cut it for grid level storage, looking past the hype we need to develop flow batteries and mechanical storage.

    MW per person isn't significant. We have an abundant clean power resource that's underdeveloped with phenomenal off-shore potential.

    We could be serious contenders in the power export business if we braoden our horizons.
    Nothing stopping private busineses doing it. We'd want to cease subsidizing wind before building for export.


  • #20
    nogoodnamesleft
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭nogoodnamesleft


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Nothing stopping private busineses doing it. We'd want to cease subsidizing wind before building for export.

    Yes, there is....cost and feasibility! The issue is that the existing electrical network on land supplying existing customers, businesses, hospitals, care homes etc would require significant reinforcement i.e. restrung lines, overlaid cables, new transmission towers, higher rated switch gear etc etc. This would also be non contestable works undertaken by the ESB, Eirgrid (or their contractors).

    HVDC technology isn't cheap neither is laying subsea cables for bulk power transmission. It would be unrealistic to assume that a private company would be able to finance the capital for a project of that type of scale as the ROI would be a number of years and would effectively be too risky for a private venture. If you wish for an example of this it may be worth looking at the Severn Barrage project in the UK it was touted as being able to supply 7% of UK demand:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage

    There is also the issue of contingency in the event of a subsea cable faulting it will be weeks before this could be rectified and contingency would have to be also accounted for otherwise those private companies responsible for the wind turbines will still get paid (i.e. by the consumer) for generation they were unable to export, this is similar to the issue with Scottish wind farms which has also been an issue of late:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-wind-farm-paid-96m-to-switch-off-1-4846602


  • #21
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    nogoodnamesleft wrote: »
    Yes, there is....cost and feasibility! The issue is that the existing electrical network on land supplying existing customers, businesses, hospitals, care homes etc would require significant reinforcement i.e. restrung lines, overlaid cables, new transmission towers, higher rated switch gear etc etc. This would also be non contestable works undertaken by the ESB, Eirgrid (or their contractors).

    All the windfarms in the UK are built and operated by private companies (and not the electricity companies). The way it works is that they bid a price (per KWH) for all the electricity they produce. If their bid is accepted they then build and operate the wind farm and feed their electricity into the grid.

    Below is table showing the costs for different electricity types. This is from 2015 and since then offshore wind costs have fallen dramatically.


    Estimated UK LCOE for projects starting in 2015, £/MWh
    Power generating technology Low Central High
    Nuclear PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)(a) 82 93 121
    Solar Large-scale PV (Photovoltaic) 71 80 94
    Wind Onshore 47 62 76
    Offshore 90 102 115
    Biomass 85 87 88
    Natural Gas Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 65 66 68
    CCGT with CCS (Carbon capture and storage) 102 110 123
    Open-Cycle Gas Turbine 157 162 170
    Coal Advanced Supercritical Coal with Oxy-comb. CCS 124 134 153
    IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) & CCS 137 148 171


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,849 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    nogoodnamesleft wrote: »
    Yes, there is....cost and feasibility! The issue is that the existing electrical network on land supplying existing customers, businesses, hospitals, care homes etc would require significant reinforcement i.e. restrung lines, overlaid cables, new transmission towers, higher rated switch gear etc etc. This would also be non contestable works undertaken by the ESB, Eirgrid (or their contractors).

    HVDC technology isn't cheap neither is laying subsea cables for bulk power transmission. It would be unrealistic to assume that a private company would be able to finance the capital for a project of that type of scale as the ROI would be a number of years and would effectively be too risky for a private venture. If you wish for an example of this it may be worth looking at the Severn Barrage project in the UK it was touted as being able to supply 7% of UK demand:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage

    There is also the issue of contingency in the event of a subsea cable faulting it will be weeks before this could be rectified and contingency would have to be also accounted for otherwise those private companies responsible for the wind turbines will still get paid (i.e. by the consumer) for generation they were unable to export, this is similar to the issue with Scottish wind farms which has also been an issue of late:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-wind-farm-paid-96m-to-switch-off-1-4846602

    Private companies spend billions everyday on risky projects, drilling for oil and gas, and spend the same again on expensive processing plants and pipelines. So why can't they spend some of that on the easy resources and even easier transportation, electrical cables. There must be something else wrong if private money is willing to sink billions in difficult to find, transport and process energy supplies but won't spend a penny on the easy to find and transport options.


  • #23
    nogoodnamesleft
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭nogoodnamesleft


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    All the windfarms in the UK are built and operated by private companies (and not the electricity companies). The way it works is that they bid a price (per KWH) for all the electricity they produce. If their bid is accepted they then build and operate the wind farm and feed their electricity into the grid.

    Below is table showing the costs for different electricity types. This is from 2015 and since then offshore wind costs have fallen dramatically.


    Estimated UK LCOE for projects starting in 2015, £/MWh
    Power generating technology Low Central High
    Nuclear PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)(a) 82 93 121
    Solar Large-scale PV (Photovoltaic) 71 80 94
    Wind Onshore 47 62 76
    Offshore 90 102 115
    Biomass 85 87 88
    Natural Gas Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 65 66 68
    CCGT with CCS (Carbon capture and storage) 102 110 123
    Open-Cycle Gas Turbine 157 162 170
    Coal Advanced Supercritical Coal with Oxy-comb. CCS 124 134 153
    IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) & CCS 137 148 171

    There is a massive difference between generating energy and distributing it to a local loads/demand Vs generating and transmission a substantial geographical distance away from the source. The example you cited is the former, the example i cited is the latter (as I was commenting with reference of generation of wind derived energy for export using the Scottish wind farms and the remote demand centred in London as an example).

    You are very much mistaken if you think thats how wind farms are constructed in the UK. The developer first has to determine (once an adequate wind speed site has been identified) where there is available capacity in the network to take the proposed generation capacity as well as securing land rights. There can always be capacity however this will come at a price as it would usually require the network operator to increase the rating of their overhead lines, overlay cables and provide the connection to their development (this alone can sink any development proposal as it will literally blow the project budget out of the water as well as scheduling as it will take months if not years for those works to be progressed due to lead times on equipment, network outage planning or if the cable routes cross any roads or rail. Once the renewable project is finally built (obviously that will be time dependant upon the connection) it will be subject a Feed In Tariff (which is also time dependant depending on when the project is available for export).


    Those figures you quoted are substantially dated as the Solar PV was decimated as the feed in tariff was substantially decreased in 2016 by the Uk energy regulator.


  • #24
    nogoodnamesleft
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭nogoodnamesleft


    Del2005 wrote: »
    Private companies spend billions everyday on risky projects, drilling for oil and gas, and spend the same again on expensive processing plants and pipelines. So why can't they spend some of that on the easy resources and even easier transportation, electrical cables. There must be something else wrong if private money is willing to sink billions in difficult to find, transport and process energy supplies but won't spend a penny on the easy to find and transport options.

    Perhaps you have answered you own question. Private companies have their shareholders/investors to answer to at the end of the day. Perhaps its easier to get a decent return/lower risk to get low hanging fruit with other developments rather than embarking on interconnections between different states.


  • #25
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    unkel wrote: »
    I can't see how those stats are relevant. Kerry turbines for Kerry people?

    Wind turbines in Ireland provide up to 75% of total electricity in Ireland at night and even during the day, I regularly see figures of over 60%

    The turbines in Kerry play an important part in this, like any other turbines in the country

    They provide approx 40% on average.


  • #26
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,849 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    nogoodnamesleft wrote: »
    Perhaps you have answered you own question. Private companies have their shareholders/investors to answer to at the end of the day. Perhaps its easier to get a decent return/lower risk to get low hanging fruit with other developments rather than embarking on interconnections between different states.

    You think a multi million Euro investment in a well which might be dry is low hanging fruit compared to the easily captured wind or sun? There has to be a reason why they are willing to gamble huge sums of money on one technology while ignoring a technology where there is little risk, investors don't like dry wells.

    I can't see how an electrical cable under the sea can be anymore complex or expensive than an oil or gas pipeline, it should be easier as there is no risk of pollution.


  • #27
    nogoodnamesleft
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭nogoodnamesleft


    Del2005 wrote: »
    You think a multi million Euro investment in a well which might be dry is low hanging fruit compared to the easily captured wind or sun? There has to be a reason why they are willing to gamble huge sums of money on one technology while ignoring a technology where there is little risk, investors don't like dry wells.

    I can't see how an electrical cable under the sea can be anymore complex or expensive than an oil or gas pipeline, it should be easier as there is no risk of pollution.

    Multi-million....if you think thats what it would cost to lay and commission a HVDC project you may want to reposition the decimal point. The report below gives an idea of the costs associated with HVDC...projects costing around 1-2 Billion depending on the length of cable lay and HVDC technology. Hence my comment regards capital.

    http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC97720/ld-na-27527-en-n.pdf

    Surprisingly there is environmental concerns associated with HVDC (dissipated heat and electromagnetic fields and how it impacts upon marine life)


  • #28
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,772 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Electrical power distribution is a lot more complex and costly than oil or gas distribution for the simple reason that there are no ‘buffers’. You can’t store electricity for later use, by and large, as you can oil or gas.

    The up-front capital investment to build solar or wind collectors is massive. It is much greater than the cost of opening oil or gas to produce a corresponding amount of energy, which is mostly paid for over the productive life of the asset and in proportion to its profitability (through royalties and levies to landowners or governments).

    Financially, a wind farm works almost the opposite way to an oil or gas field. The government or large electricity customer has to guarantee the payment for the renewable power at a viable price over the life of the asset. The power generated has to be paid for whether it is used or not.


  • #29
    bilbot79
    Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭bilbot79


    If we had a massive wind farm off the coast of Clare it could slow down the wind before it makes landfall. Maybe there'd be less damage to coastal towns in winter


  • #30
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,849 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    nogoodnamesleft wrote: »
    Multi-million....if you think thats what it would cost to lay and commission a HVDC project you may want to reposition the decimal point. The report below gives an idea of the costs associated with HVDC...projects costing around 1-2 Billion depending on the length of cable lay and HVDC technology. Hence my comment regards capital.

    http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC97720/ld-na-27527-en-n.pdf

    Surprisingly there is environmental concerns associated with HVDC (dissipated heat and electromagnetic fields and how it impacts upon marine life)

    I was saying millions for the well not the pipelines. But there can't be much difference between a pipe for liquid and a pipe for electricity when laying it in the sea, both have environmental issues

    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Electrical power distribution is a lot more complex and costly than oil or gas distribution for the simple reason that there are no ‘buffers’. You can’t store electricity for later use, by and large, as you can oil or gas.

    The up-front capital investment to build solar or wind collectors is massive. It is much greater than the cost of opening oil or gas to produce a corresponding amount of energy, which is mostly paid for over the productive life of the asset and in proportion to its profitability (through royalties and levies to landowners or governments).

    Financially, a wind farm works almost the opposite way to an oil or gas field. The government or large electricity customer has to guarantee the payment for the renewable power at a viable price over the life of the asset. The power generated has to be paid for whether it is used or not.

    So an easy to capture and produce energy source needs subsidies to be viable while an expensive and risky energy source doesn't?? Why do wind/solar farms need to be paid for in advance while old tech is paid for with consumption? It'd have to be cheaper to build a wind farm off the coast of any country than drill a well in the Arctic and ship the product across the world. Yet companies spend billions on the hard to get energy sources while ignoring the easy energy, why?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    liam7831
    Registered Users Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭liam7831


    Del2005 wrote:
    So an easy to capture and produce energy source needs subsidies to be viable while an expensive and risky energy source doesn't?? Why do wind/solar farms need to be paid for in advance while old tech is paid for with consumption? It'd have to be cheaper to build a wind farm off the coast of any country than drill a well in the Arctic and ship the product across the world. Yet companies spend billions on the hard to get energy sources while ignoring the easy energy, why?

    bilbot79 wrote:
    If we had a massive wind farm off the coast of Clare it could slow down the wind before it makes landfall. Maybe there'd be less damage to coastal towns in winter


    Might also help prevent coastal erosion and climate change


Advertisement