how they could have saved another 350 million easily

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I am not the one stating that this industry is "profitable" :rolleyes:
I am pointing out that without the heavy subsidies it would not be, but was told that it would still be profitable, which raises the obvious question of why the need to subsidise it?

As was pointed out by me and in the PrimeTime episode few days ago, it is only profitable because everyone in the country is being shafted. There was no cost/benefit analysis done and we are wasting billions on a one way bet blindly (yet again)

if you are happy paying exuberant electricity prices for the rest of your life and paying alot for anything you buy in shops and be ripped off, then good for you dont come here complaining about RipOff Ireland
what I detailed here is one of the reasons we are uncompetitive and expensive

An btw I do have a business but most of the hardware is sent/located in US/continent simply because electricity is so much cheaper there (among other reasons such as better service and networks). I am keeping people employed abroad in jobs that could be done in this country. This green scam does not create jobs it cost the country jobs and worse it makes it more expensive for everyone to live here.

Import substitution is a failed economic policy with a long list of catalogued failures with plenty of research/evidence in economic literature.

No longterm business plan then? I guessed as much. :rolleyes:

I am really surprised that a businessman like you is having difficulty with the concepts being placed before you. Trying to blame this country's exorbitant energy rates on green policies, that have not even hit mainstream yet, is unbelievably deluded and is clearly driven by an ideological, and perhaps even pathological, opposition to government involvement in things. Added to that your apparent dislike of The Greens.

Maybe you would be surprised to hear that I oppose major government involvement with the economy also? However, I am also a realist and I balance this view with common sense. When I see opportunities that are there that a private company would have difficulty taking on themselves, unless they were a multi-national with massive cash reserves, I say get the government involved. You want the government to try and promote an indigenous company to do this before it seeks out international expertise.

Perhaps you would be also surprised to hear that I oppose subsidies also, but, again, I balance this view with logic and can see why they have merits in some cases.

Getting OT here, but subsidies should be replaced with an interest free loan, secured on assets, that is repayable over a longterm window with a grace period of several years. As long as other countries are still doing them though, this is the only game in town.

Yes, some of the green policies being advocated are not profitable in the initial phase, most companies are not! SHOCKER! However, those companies generally need smaller capital than other larger projects and can easily approach their bank manager for working capital for the early years. Try doing that for a few billion....:eek:;)

---

I'm going to pick out one of your more fanciable sentences to demonstrate how you are railing against things here that you have not thought out fully:

Import substitution is a failed economic policy with a long list of catalogued failures with plenty of research/evidence in economic literature.

Yes, you are correct, there are many failures in economic history by going down this road. That's where your analysis stops.

Can you not see how you are not comparing like with like here? A once off importation of the raw materials, and the odd spare part, is somehow wasteful to continuing to import oil to power stations? That's some of the more flawed, ideologically, driven thinking I have seen on here.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Well if the grid is fully reliant on wind what do you do when the wind stops blowing? Storing electricity on the scale required is not possible so if the grid is fully reliant on wind you need conventional power plants to keep everything going during periods of calm weather. Energy demand has peaks and troughs and wind energy is no good for this because you have no control over how much energy you create at a given point in time. Any energy that is not used when it is created is wasted. Most of the energy generated at night will be wasted and there is no possibility of selling it to UK/Europe because they have low demand at the same time as us. Conventional power plants have the ability to increase output based on demand, basically you throw more gas on the fire.

all arguments iv heard before and all arguments iv heard completely discounted before, there are methods of storage. they arent 100% efficient but they do exist. also i said a grid fully reliant on renewables, there is always sunlight / wind or tides somewhere in the country.

in denmark the average wind speed is 2-4 m/s in ireland it is 3-8m/s so we have more wind then them and more land then them and less people then them. add to that solar energy,which believe it or not, when the solar panels become more efficient, we will have more then enough solar energy to make a significant dent in our grid and tidal and we would be laughing

it goes without saying that all these technologies would have to be implemented properly and efficiently and i agree i wouldnt trust our goverment or the next to do it really well, but i wouldnt trust them with nuclear either

Lets look at real hard figures http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/

Peak demand today was 4620MW which occurred at 17.30
The wind generated energy at this time was 543MW
Peak energy generated by wind today was 1150MW at 09.45

how many wind turbines do we have in the country at the moment? the fact that it could produce that much is extremely suprising to me and gives me even more hope that its should be a serious part of our future. we have a tiny amount of wind farms in this country

What does this tell us?

it tells us that if we had ten times the amount of turbines we would have been able to meet peak demand today even though it was only working at 50%, that seems pretty good to me

Clearly we need the capacity to generate almost 100% of our energy from on demand sources, regardless of the energy generating capacity of our wind farms. So in order to be completely self sufficient from wind you also need the same again in something else. Why on earth should we spend billions building wind farms when we will also incur the cost of building alternative power stations? The least expensive option is to build the alternative power stations (because they need to be able to provide us with almost 100% of your energy anyway) and scrap the wind farms.

that is only true if you believe there are times when there is no wind in the country at all and that is just not true

And dont try and tell me wind farms will be cheaper in the long run. They wont. It is quite likely a more sustainable renewable source of energy will emerge in the next couple of decades (most likely some form of nuclear) which would see our wind farms become obsolete before the huge initial costs are recovered. Of course that wont matter to the private company who built the wind farm, they got their subsidies which made it worth while for them. It is the taxpayer who paid for those subsidies and then has to pay for the next generation of power station who gets screwed.

i dont really support the idea of it being a private company that runs it anyway so thats kind of irrelevant

If you still think wind is the answer you are delusional.

every single thing you have mentioned i have heard disproved over and over again by actual experts, who i know personally, with no vested interests

but i said in the other thread i wouldnt say anything more on this as its clear that people have their entrenched views, thats fine time will tell.

PeakOutput wrote: »

all arguments iv heard before and all arguments iv heard completely discounted before, there are methods of storage. they arent 100% efficient but they do exist. also i said a grid fully reliant on renewables, there is always sunlight / wind or tides somewhere in the country.

So what your saying we should invest billions in all these renewable technologies and invest further billions in large-scale energy storage. The overall cost of this model would be huge and would take an extremely long time to recover these costs. In that time it is very likely more efficient and cheaper technologies will have developed.

PeakOutput wrote: »

in denmark the average wind speed is 2-4 m/s in ireland it is 3-8m/s so we have more wind then them and more land then them and less people then them. add to that solar energy,which believe it or not, when the solar panels become more efficient, we will have more then enough solar energy to make a significant dent in our grid and tidal and we would be laughing

See here http://www.energy.eu/#Domestic

According to Europe's Energy Portal Denmark has the highest cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity for the the average household in Europe. Wind accounts for nearly one-fifth of electricity generated in Denmark — the highest percentage of any country.

PeakOutput wrote: »

it goes without saying that all these technologies would have to be implemented properly and efficiently and i agree i wouldnt trust our goverment or the next to do it really well, but i wouldnt trust them with nuclear either

That is why I said we should open up the market to private companies. The reason I believe the energy market should be opened up to private companies is because they are spending their own money so they choose the best technology. Why should the taxpayer be carrying all the risk for developing our energy network? Let private companies develop wind/solar/tidal or whatever else they can come up with and the most efficient will win out. Introduce a big carbon tax and let them fight it out Also, because all the private companies are selling the exact same product they are competing on price alone which guarantees the lowest price which is only good for electricity customers.

PeakOutput wrote: »

how many wind turbines do we have in the country at the moment? the fact that it could produce that much is extremely suprising to me and gives me even more hope that its should be a serious part of our future. we have a tiny amount of wind farms in this country

According to SEAI we have capacity for 1379MW from wind (http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farms_in_Ireland/) and a 5MW wind farm would expect to cost in the region of €7-10 million (http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_wind_farms/) and all the cost is upfront. So our current wind capacity cost us between €1.9 and €2.8billion. Today peak demand was 4652MW, at that time wind produced 209MW. So for ~€2.5 billion we got less than 5% of the energy needed at that time. So 95% was coming from conventional power stations. So why spend another penny on wind when we will still have to pay for the conventional power station?

Building more wind farms does not reduce the cost of network (because you need to keep the existing infrastructure) but incurs huge additional costs (the cost of building the wind farm).

PeakOutput wrote: »

it tells us that if we had ten times the amount of turbines we would have been able to meet peak demand today even though it was only working at 50%, that seems pretty good to me

Based on todays figures, wind only produced 4.5% of our energy at peak demand. That tells us we need 20 times as many wind turbines. If that 4.5% cost us 2.5billion (see above) we would have to spend €50billion to meet peak demand. Wind speeds today were with the average range (average range of 7 to 18 MPH according to Irish Meteorological Service http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp and all forecasts I checked showed speeds within that range) so you would expect the wind farms to be working fairly well.

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dont really support the idea of it being a private company that runs it anyway so thats kind of irrelevant

So you are happy to see the government pumping billions of taxpayers money into a technology that will likely become outdated in the near future. The point I was making is that the government has decided we are going to put all our eggs into the wind basket which is not sensible. Under the current situation the government is promoting wind alone which means there is no incentive to look at alternatives. Like ei.sdraob keeps saying, if wind energy is so profitable why does it need to be subsidised?

PeakOutput wrote: »

every single thing you have mentioned i have heard disproved over and over again by actual experts, who i know personally, with no vested interests

You should watch last Tuesdays episode of Prime Time on the RTE Player to hear an expert disprove everything Eamon Ryan said.

PeakOutput wrote: »

but i said in the other thread i wouldnt say anything more on this as its clear that people have their entrenched views, thats fine time will tell.

You could just as easily be accused of having entrenched views. I have provided you with facts, figures and a logical argument, none of which have been offered by you.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

PeakOutput, nor anyone else in here, is proposing that wind should be built up to supply 100% of our energy needs.

But why should wind supply any of our energy needs when for every wind turbine you need an alternative with the ability to provide on demand energy. Wind is not a long term solution yet the initial costs are such that they must be spread over the long term. There will have to be great advances in energy production in near future (there will have to be and necessity is the mother of invention) so it would be very short sighted to commit to something which can only cover its costs in the long run.

PeakOutput wrote: »

it dosnt take that long to recover the money, average cost of a turbine is around 3 million, each turbine can be expected to earn half a mill profit a year

Please prove sources. Even if your figures are accurate the half a mill profit a year is probably on operating costs and does not take into account the huge capital costs of installing the turbines themselves. I have already provided figure (and sources that) that estimate the cost of our current wind farms at €2.5billion. I would like to see their profit when that cost is included. They may be including the costs spread over 100 years or so but new technologies will have developed long before then which will have made the wind farms obsolete which will cost us more in the long run.

PeakOutput wrote: »

already discussed that in the other thread, those figures include tax and denmark is the most taxed country in the world

If you look at the table in quoted from again you will see the costs include VAT and energy taxes. Denmarks standard VAT rate is 25% which is the same as in Hungary. Yet Denmark has almost double the energy costs as Hungary. In 2008 Hungary only had capacity for 127MW (page 8) of wind energy while while Denmark had 3,180MW from wind. As VAT is the same there is obviously a big energy tax in Denmark to cover the cost of the wind farms. Clearly expenditure on wind energy only increases energy prices.

PeakOutput wrote: »

the rest dosnt have to come form a conventional power station, a completely renewable grid will create more then enough energy 24/7 but im sure your going to argue that the moon will stop in the sky during the night stopping the tides preventing the sun from coming up and this just happens to happen when the wind isnt blowing anywhere in the country. fire away and argue that

Photovoltaics are very inefficient and will never be a viable option in this country. SEAI estimate tidal energy can only produce 2.18% (page 88) of the predicted electricity consumption for the year 2010. This figure could rise to 6.27% of the predicted electricity consumption between 2010 and 2015. Their contribution to overall energy need is very small and again they they are no good for the cyclical nature of energy demand.

As for wind, the most energy wind farms have ever generated is 1,196MW yet we hae capacity for 1379MW from wind. When one wind farm is working at capacity another one somewhere else in the country is producing very little. So after €2.5billion spent on wind it has only ever worked to 86.7% of capacity. At a cost of €7-10 million for a 5MW wind farm, that means we have spent between €256million and €366million on wind turbines that have not produced any energy at all.

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dont really care weather its private companies or goverment a renewable grid is a good idea, it should be done.

So you dont care whether the government throws your tax money at renewable energy. You are happy for the taxpayer to take all the risk and to carry all the costs for when these wind farms become obsolete after only recovering a fraction of their costs. As if bailing out the banks wasnt enough. Also if it is such a good idea you would have no problem proving it. I have produced plenty of facts and figure after a few simple google searches.

PeakOutput wrote: »

thats been answered numerous times in this thread feel free to read it

You have not explained why the taxpayer should subsidise something which you say is proitable. If it is profitable then by definition it does not need to receive subsidies. Subsidies only distort markets and they are just creating another bubble and we all know what happened when the last bubble burst.

PeakOutput wrote: »

why do you feel the need to repeat yourself? a totally renewable grid provides on demand energy

I dont just feel the need to repeat myself, I have the right to repeat myself because I have backed up everything I have said. You have failed to back up everything you have said. Clearly only one of us is talking in facts.

Which renewable technologies provide energy on demand? I have already proved that wind doesnt, we do not get enough intense sunlight for solar to ever be an option here and tidal has very limted potential for use here. I have already shown (and proved) to you that for wind energy to provide 100% of our peak energy demand it would cost ~€50billion. Have you any costing for this totally renewable grid of yours?

PeakOutput wrote: »

feel free to have the last word if you feel the need, i really am done this time

All you have done is say that a 100% renewable power grid is possible yet you have offered no proof of this. You just keep repeating your misguided believe, which has been based on idealism and not facts. You were done a long time ago.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE STATE TO RUN BUSINESS!

Agreed.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that much we should have learned by now in Ireland, it always goes wrong.

Untrue.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I understand the concept very well, but:
1. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE STATE TO RUN BUSINESS!
2. no cost/benefit analysis has been made, the people in charge of the Grid cant even tell us how much it cost.

What part of initial setup costs with "unlimited return", i.e. free, regularly blowing wind, do you not understand? I thought you said you understood this.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It is not deluded, posters here claim that something like 20% of the electricity comes from renewable
show me a graph/data of electricity prices in Ireland that illustrates that prices went down as the amount of wind energy increased, adjust it for a huge fall in gas prices too

While the 20% figure may be true, the majority of the grid is powered by non-renewables which have increased in price. Are you saying that energy companies should absorb all these cost increases? Surely not!

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there is no evidence of wind power lowering prices, Denmark the leader in wind power has the highest electricity costs in Europe.

Comparing a highly taxed Scandinavian country like Denmark with a low tax economy like ours is not really a measureable comparison.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I am asking for clear data that would illustrate that wind power lowers the price of electricity, for every MW of wind power we need as much of gas on standby.

Why do you persist in assuming that this is necessary?

Could we not have other renewables/nuclear/peat on standby?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

this party is responsible for a lot of damage to this country.

Like what? And don't make them take all the blame for NAMA, they were not the only people who voted for it.

How have they so harmed the country?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the country is bankrupt we are borrowing at 7%

Uhm, no, we have not drawn down in the loan agreement yet, last bond auctions largest price was just north of 6%.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

will this "investment" provide a greater return?

An unlimited renewable energy source? Of course.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

figures please! not waffle

Practical common sense, not ideology!

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as i said there is no cost/benefit analysis done so you be hard pressed to prove that "investment" in wind will ever pay itself off and the expensive debt we are taking on and the damage this distortion is doing to the economy

While I would not say that doing a CBA is a waste of time, I just get annoyed when I have to listen to people saying investing in UNLIMITED renewables is an inevitable waste. It smacks of ideology.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i am shocked that people who are leading us down this path with their targets cant event tell us how much will it cost directly and indirectly

I have no problem with seeing some figures also, but I have no problem with taking a logical leap of faith that investing in an UNLIMITED energy source will repay.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The unreliability of wind is a huge problem in a modern economy that needs reliable energy supply

Which is why you do not have wind as your only energy source, you are the second person to make this fallacious assertion.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

inter-connectors somewhat solve the problem, BUT:

* they waste electricity, transmission losses are about 30% of energy generated in any grid, longer cables == more losses, you cant escape laws of physics and superconducting cables are obscenely expensive

* we are incapable of building them cheap, our only interconnector (east-west) worked out more expensive to build, than a longer cable connecting england with netherlands :rolleyes: trust a public entity to deliver a project on budget :rolleyes:

* it blows the energy independence argument out the water since we are back to relying on someone else, also when we get a surplus such as late at night its night in UK too and they dont have to buy out electricity, so it goes to waste

This is just an "anti-government involvement-in-anything" rant that is really devoid of substance with regards to the discussion at hand.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. standing aside, why would any private company enter wind generation market when you have state tied giants such as ESB and BordGas distorting the market?

This is an argument in favour of subsidies.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

2. making the planning process more streamlined, if you listened to the members of the wind industry few months back on FrontLine, this was their main issue, red tape and beuracracy, this affects all businesses in country to!

I agree with this (the program was headlined by Kenny calling us a "nation of objectors", iirc?).

ei.sdraob wrote: »

3. investing in a grid infrastructure, yes i see the benefits of state entities controlling and providing vital infrastructure such as roads, grids and broadband, these entities should be always kept on their toes since in many areas our infrastructure is lacking (take broadband for example)

I fail to understand why you are happy with broadband being under state control whereas energy should not be? What makes energy not as vital as broadband?!

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the 2 arguments made for wind:
* energy independence
* lower energy prices

are false and downright lies

This is an assertion before the reality.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i was accused of being "ideological" here but I am trying to keep an open mind and question the bull**** we are being fed
there is no data to prove all this bull**** and thats why i fear we are being taken for an expensive ride yet again by the people who are so masterly at wasting taxpayers money by the billion

You are fearing that an investment in an UNLIMITED energy source is going to be a waste, that is why you are being called ideological.