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

Wind-pumped hydro electric storage

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Markcheese wrote: »
    Not sure of prices but I assume wind energy is cheap, prob is it needs a back up, how many times do we want to pay for the same unit of electricity used...
    Once to build the turbine and hook it to the grid
    Twice to build pumped storage
    3 times when u include all the plant already built (mainly gas) and still being paid for (by us)
    You forgot two things.
    we've to pay a 4th time to provide transmission lines to/from the pumped storage

    and if you talk about exporting the stored energy then this means you need to pay a
    5th time for an interconnecter. BUT with an interconnector points 2 , 3 are 4 no longer valid, as you can use an interconector for storage. Norned (Norway, Netherlands) had an 8% return on investment in the first two months, so the economics aren't bad, in fact you actually save money compared to providing spinning reserve. (of course the economics change when you need a lot more power, but we've looking at 1,000 MW through interconnectors (Scotland via Norn Iorn and Wales) by the end of the year )


    The other thing you forgot, the effalump in the room, is that fossil fuel prices are like it's 1973 all over again 'cept this time China has demand and money, they are also #1 in solar panels (almost all for export) and Hydro


    Even with an interconnector no 3 and 4 still have to be paid for...
    Is there enough spare capacity in the European grid system to provide power for us and for eg the uk if we have another winter like last year(no wind in major cold snap) especially if they're in same situation.
    And even more so if we become major contributors to the grid because of our wind resource...
    Haven't forgotten about the elephant. Two dirty words shale gas...
    Not cheap but seemingly plentiful ...for a while a least

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #63
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Sorry meant to say 2 and 5 still had to be pain for.

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #64
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Sorry meant to say 2 and 5 still had to be pain for.
    You may be missing the point.

    We will have 1,000MW of interconnecters in place this year for import/export so can use as storage.

    Spirit of Ireland would only be needed to supplement this. So no real economic case for the amount of pumped storage needed at present.


  • Options
    #65
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Markcheese wrote: »
    Sorry meant to say 2 and 5 still had to be pain for.
    You may be missing the point.

    We will have 1,000MW of interconnecters in place this year for import/export so can use as storage.

    Spirit of Ireland would only be needed to supplement this. So no real economic case for the amount of pumped storage needed at present.


    Don't think I'm missing the point.....but we may be arguing different points...
    Which ever system we use has a large capital cost,some seem to have several.
    Wind turbines and pumped storage: new grid,loads of wind turbine capacity and of course the damned valleys :)
    Wind turbines and interconnector,again loads of turbines new grid and a lot of new interconnector capacity. Plus somebody on the otherside of connector has paid for their"spare capacity" that we need to back up our wind, so that ain't free...
    Our existing generation system ain't all perfect but most of it is already built if not all paid for yet.gas ain't going to get cheaper and there could be supply issues.less additional capital though.

    How expensive are interconnectors... 1000mw isn't much aghada or moneypoint produce almost that .I think....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #66
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Plus somebody on the otherside of connector has paid for their"spare capacity" that we need to back up our wind, so that ain't free...

    That's not really true dude. Interconnection works by allowing us to make better use of the resources we have.

    It's not a case of someone else building spare capacity - it's a case of taking advantage of capacity that's not fully utilized at a given time.

    A good way of thinking about it is to imagine two mates getting paid at different periods during the month and lending each other money when one is skint and the other is not. The net amount of money is the same - but it's easier for both of them to make ends meet at various times of the month.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Not sure of prices but I assume wind energy is cheap, prob is it needs a back up...
    No, it's cheap because it's cheap.
    Markcheese wrote: »
    ...how many times do we want to pay for the same unit of electricity used...
    Once to build the turbine and hook it to the grid
    Twice to build pumped storage
    3 times when u include all the plant already built (mainly gas) and still being paid for (by us)
    I don't understand your argument. On the one hand, you're saying wind-generated electricity is cheap, but on the other you're claiming that we're paying for this electricity multiple times?


  • Options
    #68
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    L wrote: »
    A good way of thinking about it is to imagine two mates getting paid at different periods during the month and lending each other money when one is skint and the other is not. The net amount of money is the same - but it's easier for both of them to make ends meet at various times of the month.

    But if both mates need the money at the same time there is no latitude. Energy independence means self sufficiency which is what spirit and co seem to be peddling, another white elephant.


  • Options
    #69
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Markcheese wrote: »
    How expensive are interconnectors... 1000mw isn't much aghada or moneypoint produce almost that .I think....
    our winter peak is 5,000 MW

    interconnectors are cheaper than power stations, nuclear reactors and [pumped storage + interconnectors]


  • Options
    #70
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Oldtree wrote: »
    But if both mates need the money at the same time there is no latitude. Energy independence means self sufficiency which is what spirit and co seem to be peddling, another white elephant.
    whether they 'peddle' a little bit or alot, the point should be, that the proposal with all its sicking points, is a tangible large MW maybe GW project that could put us back in top tier of the renewable market in Europe which is where we as an Island Nation (who are currently dependant on Russian/Ukrainian relations) should be. We'll take all the inter connectors we can get and wouldn't it be a marvellous dream that one day we could 'barter' our wind and wave energy instead of the Billions spend we have currently - on fossil fuel imports which is what were trying to get rid off isn't it? whether your an environmentalist or and economist...


  • Options
    #71
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Oldtree wrote: »
    But if both mates need the money at the same time there is no latitude. Energy independence means self sufficiency which is what spirit and co seem to be peddling, another white elephant.

    Yep, if both countries need the energy at the same time, one goes short (as I said, when one mate has extra cash and the other is skint). It's rare though that that happens though (and when it does, there should be something to pick up the slack).

    Storage really is a white elephant - massive capital investment, very little actual benefit (at least for our current plant mix). I'm with you on that one.
    BryanF wrote: »
    whether they 'peddle' a little bit or alot, the point should be, that the proposal with all its sicking points, is a tangible large MW maybe GW project that could put us back in top tier of the renewable market in Europe which is where we as an Island Nation (who are currently dependant on Russian/Ukrainian relations) should be.

    If you're talking about storage, you need to think that through again. Enough storage capacity to actually make a difference to us would be cripplingly expensive.

    IIRC, the academic publications say the time to look at storage for value is when you're getting 60% of your energy from wind. We aren't there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Markcheese wrote: »
    How expensive are interconnectors... 1000mw isn't much aghada or moneypoint produce almost that .I think....
    our winter peak is 5,000 MW

    interconnectors are cheaper than power stations, nuclear reactors and [pumped storage + interconnectors]




    So if we need 5000mw in winter and we have about 1000mw interconnector,about 3 or 4 thousand relatively modern gas fired turbines and moneypoint all mainly stateowned could they be our "battery" possibly too expensive to be our base load if gas,carbon prices go up..but able to come on stream with decent weather forecasting to provide power in slack wind... And their already built ....prob extend their life vastly if they weren't used much too

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #73
    blackbox
    Registered Users Posts: 4,215 ✭✭✭blackbox


    I've been reading this thought-provoking thread, and it appears to me that there are benefits to pumped storage, but the problem is that the cost could make it unviable.

    Here's an idea for people to consider: why not use existing storage facilities. There are three (I think) hydroelectric schemes on the river Liffey, each with a modest output from the natural water flow.

    Could a very large turbine system be placed between two of the reservoirs - big enough to empty the upper reservoir into the lower reservoir(s) in around day. During the night (or other period of low demand or surplus wind energy), the massive turbines could be reversed, refilling the upper reservoirs. I haven't done any calculations here - maybe there would be enough water for more than a day.

    Obviously the reservoirs would no longer be much good for sailing or other recreation, but that would be a small sacrifice.

    This would require the installation of new turbines, piping and conductors, but would avoid the cost and environmental impact of flooding additional valleys.

    NB I am only using the Liffey as an example - any reasonably proximate pair of reservoirs at different altitudes could be used.


    ,


  • Options
    #74
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Markcheese wrote: »
    Not sure of prices but I assume wind energy is cheap, prob is it needs a back up...
    No, it's cheap because it's cheap.
    Markcheese wrote: »
    ...how many times do we want to pay for the same unit of electricity used...
    Once to build the turbine and hook it to the grid
    Twice to build pumped storage
    3 times when u include all the plant already built (mainly gas) and still being paid for (by us)
    I don't understand your argument. On the one hand, you're saying wind-generated electricity is cheap, but on the other you're claiming that we're paying for this electricity multiple times?


    Just cos something is cheap doesn't mean it's efficient, wind is part of a system(which may be efficient)

    And yeah I am saying it wind energy could be cheap, but if u have to have too many layers of back up to ensure that u keep the lights on then your ESB bill won't

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #75
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    BryanF wrote: »
    whether they 'peddle' a little bit or alot, the point should be, that the proposal with all its sicking points, is a tangible large MW maybe GW project that could put us back in top tier of the renewable market in Europe which is where we as an Island Nation (who are currently dependant on Russian/Ukrainian relations) should be. We'll take all the inter connectors we can get and wouldn't it be a marvellous dream that one day we could 'barter' our wind and wave energy instead of the Billions spend we have currently - on fossil fuel imports which is what were trying to get rid off isn't it? whether your an environmentalist or and economist...

    What a lovely dream, top tier, oh I'm all tingly......

    Interconnectors import nuclear energy and unless you can compete with that type of cheap price energy the dream lives on.


  • Options
    #76
    Red Neck Hughie
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Red Neck Hughie


    Oldtree wrote: »
    What a lovely dream, top tier, oh I'm all tingly......

    Interconnectors import nuclear energy and unless you can compete with that type of cheap price energy the dream lives on.

    Cheap or subsidized beyond belief?
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2059603,00.html

    cost per unit: Nuclear 11c/kWh, wind here pays 6c/Kwh

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jul/22/nuclear-power-cost-delay-edf


  • Options
    #77
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Markcheese wrote: »
    And yeah I am saying it wind energy could be cheap, but if u have to have too many layers of back up to ensure that u keep the lights on then your ESB bill won't
    I've never really understood this argument - where are all these "layers of back up" that are being built in Ireland, for example? Interconnectors are being built, which makes a lot of sense with or without wind generation, but aside from that?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    Interconnectors import nuclear energy and unless you can compete with that type of cheap price energy the dream lives on.
    Nuclear is cheaper than wind? Since when?


  • Options
    #78
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Since the real wind infastructure costs are never included in any debate I have seen.

    Dont get me wrong I am not advocating nuclear power at the moment as I am still thinking about it, but the lack of detail when it comes to the real costs of power from wind really gets my goat, omitting the things mentioned above like infastructure and storage!

    Have a read of this as to why I am still thinking:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328491.700-power-paradox-clean-might-not-be-green-forever.html


  • Options
    #79
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Since the real wind infastructure costs are never included in any debate I have seen.
    They almost always are, but for some reason it is assumed that they are not. SEAI estimate the cost of a 5MW wind farm as €7-10 milion. This figure includes “the feasibility studies, EIS and planning application, civil and electrical engineering works, grid connection costs, plus all operating, maintenance and decommissioning costs.”
    http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_wind_farms
    Oldtree wrote: »
    Dont get me wrong I am not advocating nuclear power at the moment as I am still thinking about it, but the lack of detail when it comes to the real costs of power from wind really gets my goat...
    An estimated total cost of a wind farm installation is readily available. On the other hand, the true, long-term cost of nuclear is almost impossible to calculate, largely due to the unknown costs associated with waste treatment/disposal/storage.


  • Options
    #80
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Best plan is to reduce long term demand for energy. In a nutshell this means we have to stop wasting heat.

    If we had houses with enough insulation to use passive heating that would slash our fuel imports. It would also reduce the peak daily demand for electricity and seasonal variations. If you needed to top up the house / charge the EV when it was windier, because the house stays warm for a considerable time after you turn off the heat.

    Technology like super insulated cookers would also help. So the cooker takes a very long time to cool down.

    So instead of storing electricity in hydro you store it as heat in the home. Payback time is longer than for an interconnector, but probably less than pumped hydro.


    At present we can get ~60% efficiency from gas. Liquidised coal or biomass would be close. To get some of the other 40% would probably require a three step process MHD followed by CCGT. Wind power could be used to compress air for CAES to improve efficiency further.


  • Options
    #81
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Best plan is to reduce long term demand for energy. In a nutshell this means we have to stop wasting heat.

    If we had houses ...
    i agree reduce first and foremost. but i think our general obsession with the car, coupled with a lack of public transport is just as big an issue - we are attempting to deal with the efficiency of our homes (commercial buildings are a whole other issue) but I'm not sure that the same attempts are being made to reduce our national transportation emissions or offer the public real alternatives - some of this comes back to our Planning and 'sustainable development' policies over the the last 2 decades... wrapped up in both buildings and transport we are also seeing a switch to electricity seen as a 'cleaner' fuel source when most of it is coming from fossil fuels, (often under the term of 'renewable technology' where the likes of heat pumps and the electric car are concerned)..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    They almost always are, but for some reason it is assumed that they are not. SEAI estimate the cost of a 5MW wind farm as €7-10 milion. This figure includes “the feasibility studies, EIS and planning application, civil and electrical engineering works, grid connection costs, plus all operating, maintenance and decommissioning costs.”

    But the real costs are not weighted for the pollution caused in the manufacture of the turbines, the pollution in the manufacture of the infastructure, the pollution in the installation of the infastructure, the cost on the environment of such a vast infastructure and lastly but hugely the storage manufacture pollution and cost to the environmant necessary to backup a variable system. Also missing is the maintainance costs and pollution.

    also worth noting that the turbines and infastructure have a finite life, thus there is a repeat of the above every say 25 years or so at least.

    And yes the long term nuclear waste is an issue that is unquantifiable, but safer disposal should advance over the coming decades as with using alternative fuel sources, as does the increased safety from a plant (and yes i dont want one near me yet!!! havnt finished thinking). But the reality is that we are already importing nuclear generated power through the interconnector and will import more via the new one. So is it ok for them over there to do somthing that we are not prepared to do here but want the benefit from?

    The latest on bio power from new scientist suggests the following equivilents:

    1 square kilometer wind or solar can generate 7.7 megawats
    5 square kilometers of optimised microbial fuel cells can generate the same
    35 square kilometers of biomass is required to generate the same.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328512.300-power-plants-grow-your-own-electricity.html?full=true


  • Options
    #83
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    BryanF wrote: »
    wrapped up in both buildings and transport we are also seeing a switch to electricity seen as a 'cleaner' fuel source when most of it is coming from fossil fuels, (often under the term of 'renewable technology' where the likes of heat pumps and the electric car are concerned)..

    That's a surprisingly dumb take on things.

    If you use less energy to do the same tasks it's a net win (and heat pumps do).

    If you use a more efficient method of generating that energy, it's a net win (and bigger generators have better efficiencies than small gas heaters).

    If you use tech that's compatible with cleaner generation tech, that's a net win (and weirdly electricity based systems are easier to integrate with renewables).

    People keep harping on about the state of the power system now (or in a few years) as if it's the end goal. Stop thinking short term and start thinking of it as small steps in the right direction that eventually allow us to take big leaps.


  • Options
    #84
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Oldtree wrote: »
    But the real costs are not weighted for the pollution caused in the manufacture of the turbines, the pollution in the manufacture of the infastructure, the pollution in the installation of the infastructure, the cost on the environment of such a vast infastructure and lastly but hugely the storage manufacture pollution and cost to the environmant necessary to backup a variable system. Also missing is the maintainance costs and pollution.

    It's interesting you bring that up. There's a study released today by ecologists from the Carnegie institute in Stanford on that topic. Basically, it takes a long time but if we start using renewables and nuclear immediately, we'd be clear of the manufacturing penalties in about 50 years and making major progress within a century.

    “Achieving substantial reductions in temperatures relative to the coal-based system will take the better part of a century, and will depend on rapid and massive deployment of some mix of conservation, wind, solar, and nuclear, and possibly carbon capture and storage,”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014019


  • Options
    #85
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    L wrote: »
    If you use less energy to do the same tasks it's a net win (and heat pumps do).
    I'm not convinced that the use of electricity for home heating is appropriate yet in Ireland, especially when that energy originates from oil/gas. In fact the 10kwh/m2py of renewable energy required through the BER system is actually damaging the chances of home builders reducing their heating requirements due to the way the DEAP calculator is set-up. and as regards the government pushing electric cars, when they wont sort out the renewable energy 'gate' issues seems 'dumb' to me, they'll claim that they have x amount of 'green' transport on the road when to run that transport has probably used the same amount of fossil fuel.


  • Options
    #86
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    BryanF wrote: »
    i agree reduce first and foremost. but i think our general obsession with the car, coupled with a lack of public transport is just as big an issue
    biggest waste of heat in the country is petrol engines.
    converting to diesel and/or storing braking energy ( flywheel / compressed gas / or small battery in a "hybrid") would help.
    we are also seeing a switch to electricity seen as a 'cleaner' fuel source when most of it is coming from fossil fuels, (often under the term of 'renewable technology' where the likes of heat pumps and the electric car are concerned)..
    gas to electricity 60% under ideal conditions
    electric heater ~100% efficient (heat pump more so)

    old gas boilers are 70-80% efficient , so the old electricity isn't really that bad. (just bloody expensive) Calor do a boiler with 1Kw electrical output so best of both worlds

    remember TV / lights / server farm all convert electricity to heat with nearly 100% efficiency.

    of course electricity costs more, but thanks to cheapo builders most apartments don't have gas , costs money to build to the regulations. So lots of people have no choice in what to use for heat.

    Electric cars are feasible, smart meters will help, but the cost is huge. Petrol is now costing me 20c a mile :eek: I averaged maybe 5,000 miles a year (less now obviously). The capital cost of an EV would cost me €1 a mile over six years. It's like pumped storage, in that it looks good on paper but the real world economics don't look attractive.

    In contrast an interconnector is car-pooling, you don't have to buy new cars, and the mileage per person can be higher than an EV

    And here's the thing, EV's will probably be cheaper in future so it might be cheaper to wait because the payback time will be shorter.

    As an example Photovoltaic prices are dropping so fast that the panels are no longer the main cost, land , brackets, electronics, connection to the grid are more important. Photovoltaics are available in windows, so potential there for more use in cities. Also at our latitude tall buildings are better suited than flat farmland.


  • Options
    #87
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Oldtree wrote: »
    But the real costs are not weighted for the pollution caused in the manufacture of the turbines, the pollution in the manufacture of the infastructure, the pollution in the installation of the infastructure, the cost on the environment of such a vast infastructure and lastly but hugely the storage manufacture pollution and cost to the environmant necessary to backup a variable system. Also missing is the maintainance costs and pollution.

    also worth noting that the turbines and infastructure have a finite life, thus there is a repeat of the above every say 25 years or so at least.
    cab looking up the ESB press release about wind turbines taking just three months to be carbon neutral. That's ONE percent of their design life. But hydro stations have been running for far longer than their design lives. Ardnacrusha has been running since the 1920's

    And yes the long term nuclear waste is an issue that is unquantifiable, but safer disposal should advance over the coming decades
    you are handwaving
    if that was true then it would have advanced over the previous decades.

    In reality what has happened is the regulations have gotten tougher. So best practice a few decades ago just won't do today. And in all likely hood best practice today isn't good enough for tomorrow. Actually best practice in one country won't work in other countries, compare US and Finland.

    we are already importing nuclear generated power through the interconnector and will import more via the new one.
    Oh yeah the UK is building Nukes like there is no tomorrow isn't it ?
    They have 10 plants, 4 of which are due to shut down in the next 4 years leading to an "energy gap". Building an interconnector will reduce their need to build more nukes. So stop with the FUD.
    The latest on bio power from new scientist suggests the following equivilents:

    1 square kilometer wind or solar can generate 7.7 megawats
    5 square kilometers of optimised microbial fuel cells can generate the same
    35 square kilometers of biomass is required to generate the same.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328512.300-power-plants-grow-your-own-electricity.html?full=true
    Aren't you forgetting that we have 652,000Km2 of territorial waters ? :P

    In theory we could produce 143 GW with biomass :D

    You can produce wind AND solar on the same Km2

    You can use waste heat / CO2 from a power station to boost biomass yield from algae

    And insulation will reduce demand. ESB spent €360 million on Aghada which gives out 435MW. If you spent €360 insulating the attics ( and doubling up hot water tank ) of one million homes how much energy would you save over the next 20-30 years ?


  • Options
    #88
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Oh yeah the UK is building Nukes like there is no tomorrow isn't it ?
    They have 10 plants, 4 of which are due to shut down in the next 4 years leading to an "energy gap". Building an interconnector will reduce their need to build more nukes. So stop with the FUD.

    Aren't you forgetting that we have 652,000Km2 of territorial waters ? :P

    In theory we could produce 143 GW with biomass :D

    You can produce wind AND solar on the same Km2

    There are interconnectors all over the place from the uk into europe (france) so it is a bit naive to think that some of the electricity you are consuming in not from a nuclear plant. And when the wind stops blowing you will be using even more.

    With regard to biomass and wind and solar all over the place I would refer you to the previous posting pointing to a new scientist article that suggested there is a limit to wind and solar power that can be generated before the major winds and reflected sunlight would be impacted on and effect the climates worldwide. And that point is well below what would be needed to meet projected future demand. So its more of the same, solar panels in ireland are a nice plesant asthetic for the green at heart, but will not be financially viable.

    I include myself as a green of heart but realistic as I will be putting up solar panels to get rid of the pollution from the oil but know that it is in reality more expensive, and installing a stove so carbon captured is equal to the carbon released and plant an appropiate amount of trees to try and set up a sustainable wood rotation (not to mention the carbon sequestered by the maturing meadow/coppice roots. The maturing meadow alone sequesters over 3 tonnes per acre per year so add the trees to that. My understanding is that it is about 13 tonnes from an oil burner per home per year to offset at the least.)


  • Options
    #89
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    But the real costs are not weighted for the pollution caused in the manufacture of the turbines, the pollution in the manufacture of the infastructure, the pollution in the installation of the infastructure...
    As opposed to all other forms of power generation?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    also worth noting that the turbines and infastructure have a finite life, thus there is a repeat of the above every say 25 years or so at least.
    Again, how is this unique to wind generation?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    But the reality is that we are already importing nuclear generated power through the interconnector and will import more via the new one. So is it ok for them over there to do somthing that we are not prepared to do here but want the benefit from?
    I don't understand your point - what has this got to do with the cost of wind power?


  • Options
    #90
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    As opposed to all other forms of power generation?
    Again, how is this unique to wind generation?
    I don't understand your point - what has this got to do with the cost of wind power?

    Yes as the infastructure needed for wind farms all over the place is massive.

    It is not, but it is a point ignored by the wind pushers.

    The cost of wind power vs the cost of another power source and the attitudes towards that other power source seems to me to be a reasonable part of this discussion and that other power source has been referred to in previous posts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Yes as the infastructure needed for wind farms all over the place is massive.
    Pollution attributable to turbine manufacture and the building of infrastructure need to be factored into all forms of power generation in order to allow an objective comparison. I'm really not at all convinced that the environmental impact of construction is considerably higher in the case of wind power, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Besides, in the case of wind, any such costs would have to be weighted against the environmental impacts of fuel refinery needed for other forms of power generation.
    Oldtree wrote: »
    It is not, but it is a point ignored by the wind pushers.
    The fact that turbines have a finite lifespan is being ignored by "wind pushers"? Really? Who has argued that wind farms, once built, can go on producing power indefinitely?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    The cost of wind power vs the cost of another power source and the attitudes towards that other power source seems to me to be a reasonable part of this discussion and that other power source has been referred to in previous posts.
    Well, my attitude towards nuclear power is that I'm not at all convinced it's economical, either in the UK or Ireland. But let's not turn this into a discussion on nuclear power please.


Advertisement