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

A warning about Renewable Energy

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lads Please keep on topic.


  • Options
    #93
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Lads Please keep on topic.

    Sorry


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    professore wrote: »
    That is the case. Farming as it is carried out in the EU is not economically sustainable. Farming is economically sustainable if done in a manner similar to New Zealand or Brazil.
    But that's the point - just because a practice is in receipt of subsidies does not mean that said practice is fundamentally uneconomical.


  • Options
    #95
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But that's the point - just because a practice is in receipt of subsidies does not mean that said practice is fundamentally uneconomical.

    Another debate for another thread !!! :mad:


  • Options
    #96
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Another debate for another thread !!! :mad:
    Name an energy technology that has reached maturity without decades of state support.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Macha wrote: »
    Name an energy technology that has reached maturity without decades of state support.

    Turf burning ranges and stoves


  • Options
    #98
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Just you wait till the bog overflyers from the politics forum find you you are spreading heresy Pudsey. :D


  • Options
    #99
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Another debate for another thread !!! :mad:
    I think you'll find that subsidies are very much a part of the current debate.
    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    Turf burning ranges and stoves
    Since when is turf not subsidised?


  • Options
    #100
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Since when is turf not subsidised?

    Last time I cut it nobody gave me any subsidy or I never new the fella I bought it from were getting a grant for cutting it. And I do not think there is a subsidy install or but a stove.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #101
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    Last time I cut it nobody gave me any subsidy...
    How much did you pay for this turf that you cut?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How much did you pay for this turf that you cut?

    That's weak - especially if you own the land you're cutting the turf on.

    The same argument can be made wrt any forestry, private of public.


  • Options
    #103
    OssianSmyth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭OssianSmyth


    Non-renewable turf burning is heavily subsidised in Ireland in two ways:

    Turf burning power stations are subsidised by the PSO levy on electricity bills up to about €80m/year. This is twice the subsidy paid to wind farms yet generates less electricity.

    Peat briquettes and coal for domestic use are subsidised by exemption from carbon excise duties.

    When comparing electricity prices across countries, it makes sense to consider taxes.

    Domestic electricity costs more in Ireland than in Germany or Denmark when you look at pre-tax prices. The Germans and Danes choose to add high taxes on top of the wholesale generation costs. (See Eurostat table nrg_pc_204)

    Germany is now exporting more electricity than ever before despite warning of power shortages. The Germans have invested heavily in solar and wind even though they have less wind resources than us and less sunshine than southern Europe.

    Ireland's energy future is now looking bright. By 2020, as much as 80% of our electricity needs will be either domestically supplied or hedged by onshore wind. In addition we are well placed to benefit from any progress in marine energy technologies.


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


    antoobrien wrote: »
    That's weak - especially if you own the land you're cutting the turf on.
    Not really - in order for energy to be freely available to a subset of the population, the rest of the population (not to mention future generations) have to pay extra for their energy.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    The same argument can be made wrt any forestry, private of public.
    Not exactly - trees can be replanted.


  • Options
    #105
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not really - in order for energy to be freely available to a subset of the population, the rest of the population (not to mention future generations) have to pay extra for their energy.

    Ownign land is not a subsidy - neither is owning an oil well or coal mine.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not exactly - trees can be replanted.

    Actually yes exactly, there are subsidies for planting trees, I've never heard of a subsidy for cutting turf, in fact they're paying big owners in certain bogs not to cut turf (not for emissions but for biodiversity)


  • Options
    #106
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    OssianSmyth wrote: »
    Turf burning power stations are subsidised by the PSO levy on electricity bills up to about €80m/year.

    And how does that apply to me buying ans saving 30 yards of my neighbours bog?

    Answer:
    it doesn't


  • Options
    #107
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Yes germany is exporting energy this is due to the fact that it has not yest closed all it nuclear power stations, however the price of there electricity is skyrocketing due to this as i understand. They are also finding an issue with storing there renewables wheather it is solar or wind.

    Like I have posted earlier in this thread I see no plan in place at present to put in place an economicl power storage systen in any country. Most that are being investigted have large losses (hydro about 20%) or are not very green ( car battery solution) and even if implemented now would be 10-20 years before they are even put in place.

    It is necessary that we look at all viable solutions and investigate which is the msot suitable for Ireland. The truth is that solar and wind are not steady forms of electricity generation and as we have not factored in a storage solution there true cost may never be economical.


  • Options
    #108
    OssianSmyth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭OssianSmyth


    German domestic electricity prices have risen more slowly than the European average over the past 5 yrs. See Eurostat: http://bit.ly/UGnJPU

    Storage is expensive and limited. We use Turlough Hill which can store 1.8GWhr.

    Instead of storage, we can balance our power and demand needs against the much larger UK grid. Interconnectors to Northern Ireland route through to Scotland and the new interconnector joins directly to Wales. Eirgrid is looking at interconnection to France, while private companies are looking at 5GW of new interconnection to the UK.

    Our surplus wind power will be exported to countries struggling to meet their binding renewable commitments. Purchasing countries will have to pay refit tariffs for this power,while Ireland may choose to levy a royalty on wind generated electricity.

    A broader plan by the EU is to construct an offshore grid linking all the countries around the North Sea and the Irish Sea with a subsea HVDC grid linking up offshore wind farms and multiple national grids.

    http://www.offshoregrid.eu/


  • Options
    #109
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    OssianSmyth wrote: »
    German domestic electricity prices have risen more slowly than the European average over the past 5 yrs. See Eurostat: http://bit.ly/UGnJPU

    Storage is expensive and limited. We use Turlough Hill which can store 1.8GWhr.

    Instead of storage, we can balance our power and demand needs against the much larger UK grid. Interconnectors to Northern Ireland route through to Scotland and the new interconnector joins directly to Wales. Eirgrid is looking at interconnection to France, while private companies are looking at 5GW of new interconnection to the UK.

    Our surplus wind power will be exported to countries struggling to meet their binding renewable commitments. Purchasing countries will have to pay refit tariffs for this power,while Ireland may choose to levy a royalty on wind generated electricity.

    A broader plan by the EU is to construct an offshore grid linking all the countries around the North Sea and the Irish Sea with a subsea HVDC grid linking up offshore wind farms and multiple national grids.

    http://www.offshoregrid.eu/ [/QUOTE]

    This will only take some of the surplas, taking a three hour time lag and that is from Poland to Ireland this still leaves a large off peak demand, also wind is intermittant and like solar gives us large surplases or shortages as well as we having a max and min demand period's, even if we managed to level the max demand period accross Europe ( giving it a 5 hour window morning and evening) we would still be left with large time windows where wind was surplas.


  • Options
    #110
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    antoobrien wrote: »
    And how does that apply to me buying ans saving 30 yards of my neighbours bog?

    Answer:
    it doesn't

    Small scale turf cutting isn't subsided unless agricultural fuel is used but there is an environmental cost which wood fuel doesn't have. In that sense we are subsiding its environmental cost in a way.


  • Options
    #111
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,806 ✭✭✭amacca


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Just like the view that was "destroyed" by the 4 turbine windfarm in Indreabhan that would ruin the "visual amenity" of the area - a windfarm that can only be seen from a certain narrow corridor on the road!

    There's an awful lot of hot air being talked about "visual amenitiy" - almost exclusively by non-locals who want their holiday area to remain quaint and rustic and to hell with what the people that actually live there think or want!

    beg to differ - I live in an area being proposed for windfarm development and although I would initially have shared your view having seen the turbines in arigna/leitrim and their positioning etc and thought sure whats the problem?........speaking as a local I'm now firmly anti wind turbine and not entirely from a nimby viewpoint after a little extra research - a lot of things dont add up/should be very undesirable for people living in the area with those turbines

    1) In order to produce the kinds of target wattage the govt/energy companies need to fill the quota, most new turbines will be bigger than the ones most people are now used to seeing around the country (very significantly bigger - they will be towering structures dominating the landscape)

    2)the planning laws as they stand allow for them to be placed way too close to dwellings Imo

    3)the constant whine/hum (especially when the blades are rotated facing a house) do cause more than just a minor annoyance for people...not just problems sleeping, although that imo should be enough (I value a good nights sleep) - and this hum/whine is audible and a problem from many kms away

    4)the shadow flicker is unsightly - but that one is just my personal opinion I suppose

    5)farmers say that livestock just do not seem to thrive as well in adjoining land - have not seen research but theres quite a lot of eyewitness/anecdotal stuff out there for it to be just mere disgruntled whining

    6)even houses many kilometres away become hard to sell once they are visible as prospective buyers simply dont want to live near these things

    7)local roads will be in very poor condition considering the amount of traffic they will bear during the construction period (obscene amounts of cement/ trucks carrying bases sections etc etc)

    8)the things do not even appear to be that efficient when you consider what goes into them

    9) the wind energy companies are playing dirty in my book - (swearing landowners to secrecy in pre contracts/labyrinthine contracts which allow for not actually putting a turbine up on your property but using your land as a buffer zone - so you get shafted by the turbines going up beside you but none of the payout) + those not participating have no way of finding out whats in the pipeline for their area ahead of planning being sought (which will seemingly be expedited as this turbine development is classified as a project of common interest) - this is one of the reasons I would be very wary of the windfarm propaganda - if they have nothing to hide why are they behaving this way

    10)the uk are not building anymore inland, you have to ask yourself why, surely its not just the landed aristocracy wishing to preserve their vast country estates?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    amacca wrote: »
    8)the things do not even appear to be that efficient when you consider what goes into them
    Considering they will produce electricity for 30+ years once the initial construction and installation is completed, I find this claim more than a little puzzling.
    amacca wrote: »
    10)the uk are not building anymore inland, you have to ask yourself why, surely its not just the landed aristocracy wishing to preserve their vast country estates?
    Yes, that pretty much is it. Plus a Tory government in power that's ideologically opposed to wind farms. The total mess they're making of their energy policy is a direct result of differences in attitude between the Lib Dems and Tories. They're not calling it an 'energyshambles' for nothing:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/another-energy-shambles-coalition


  • Options
    #113
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,782 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Macha wrote: »
    Plus a Tory government in power that's ideologically opposed to wind farms.
    Maybe it's because with the U.K. entering an age of austerity, they're not too enamoured with the massive subsidies required for these things when they can't even be depended on. Actually I take that back - they can be depended on to produce nothing when power is needed the most, during winter anti-cyclones.


  • Options
    #114
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    ...they can be depended on to produce nothing when power is needed the most, during winter anti-cyclones.
    Shocking revelation: wind turbines need wind to produce electricity.


  • Options
    #115
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Macha wrote: »
    Considering they will produce electricity for 30+ years once the initial construction and installation is completed, I find this claim more than a little puzzling.


    Yes, that pretty much is it. Plus a Tory government in power that's ideologically opposed to wind farms. The total mess they're making of their energy policy is a direct result of differences in attitude between the Lib Dems and Tories. They're not calling it an 'energyshambles' for nothing:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/another-energy-shambles-coalition

    The landed aristocracy idea is very hard to swallow. Tory resistance against windfarms is a lot more plausible based on their more conservative approach to governance.


  • Options
    #116
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    SeanW wrote: »
    Maybe it's because with the U.K. entering an age of austerity, they're not too enamoured with the massive subsidies required for these things when they can't even be depended on. Actually I take that back - they can be depended on to produce nothing when power is needed the most, during winter anti-cyclones.

    That's strange as they're on the cusp of offering a staggering strike price for nuclear, which far outstrips any such subsidies to renewables. They're also considering underwriting the cost of construction of nuclear plants. A bonkers idea.


  • Options
    #117
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The thorium cycle was first publicly announced in 1946
    India has recently completed a new deal with Canada for more uranium and South Korea for nuclear technology (the Canadian CANDU reactors would probably be more suitable for thorium)
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/india-canada-conclude-talks-to-allow-uranium-sales-harper-says.html

    Car batteries are a very expensive way of storing power.
    Peak usage time is just when people have driven home too...
    Batteries may age prematurely if drained too fast (heat) or irreversible reactions (some technology have limited charge/discharge cycles)
    Each cycle on an €8,000 battery that has a life of 1,000 cycles could cost €8.


    The key to renewables is matching supply and demand.
    Given that the UK are a nett importer of electricity exporting it would appear to be a better choice than trying to store the stuff.


  • Options
    #118
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    The thorium cycle was first publicly announced in 1946
    India has recently completed a new deal with Canada for more uranium and South Korea for nuclear technology (the Canadian CANDU reactors would probably be more suitable for thorium)
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/india-canada-conclude-talks-to-allow-uranium-sales-harper-says.html

    Car batteries are a very expensive way of storing power.
    Peak usage time is just when people have driven home too...
    Batteries may age prematurely if drained too fast (heat) or irreversible reactions (some technology have limited charge/discharge cycles)
    Each cycle on an €8,000 battery that has a life of 1,000 cycles could cost €8.


    The key to renewables is matching supply and demand.
    Given that the UK are a nett importer of electricity exporting it would appear to be a better choice than trying to store the stuff.

    I agree with you regarding battery's. The problem with exporting excess to GB is they like us want a dependable supply not just the excess when we have it


  • Options
    #119
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    I agree with you regarding battery's. The problem with exporting excess to GB is they like us want a dependable supply not just the excess when we have it
    again the problem is supply/demand matching.

    Real time power in Scandinavia - exports to Netherlands and Germany
    http://www.statnett.no/en/The-power-system/Production-and-consumption/State-of-the-Nordic-Power-System-Map/
    total hydro today 20 562 MW - that's way above any "Spirit of Ireland" proposals and over four times our record peak demand

    UK are importing power from the Netherlands and France
    France and Germany are swapping power too.

    UK is not a separate entity, if you want pumped storage then Norway/Sweden are probably the places to do it.


  • Options
    #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

    Car batteries are a very expensive way of storing power.
    Peak usage time is just when people have driven home too...
    Batteries may age prematurely if drained too fast (heat) or irreversible reactions (some technology have limited charge/discharge cycles)
    Each cycle on an €8,000 battery that has a life of 1,000 cycles could cost €8.

    The car batteries have very advanced cell monitoring or what is known as a BMS, it will never allow a battery to over charge or discharge. Or charge or discharge if it becomes too hot.

    Remember a car battery may have 1000 cycles at complete 100% charge and discharge cycles but could have 5000-10,000 cycles at shallower cycles, meaning your car that gets 80 miles at 100% cycles will have a 80,000 life, but you will never see 100% cycles just as you don't use all of your petrol or diesel so that 80K miles could turn to 250K Miles.

    In regard to using the car battery for storage, you would have the option to allow or not the function and you would control how much would be taken from you vehicles battery and when.

    If work places installed cheap 3kw chargers, that would be plenty for cars to charge during the working day for longer range commuters, and while hooked up to the grid they can charge from excess wind and drive on it during the day and use the rest if not needed at the peak period when everyone comes home for dinner.

    Once the batteries are spent the ESB would buy from the garages or whomever, and this would mean your new battery is far less expensive. Remember Lithium batteries can hold a 75% renaming capacity for several years of shallow cycles.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The car batteries have very advanced cell monitoring or what is known as a BMS, it will never allow a battery to over charge or discharge. Or charge or discharge if it becomes too hot.
    Laptop batteries have had them for years and they still caught fire.

    In regard to using the car battery for storage, you would have the option to allow or not the function and you would control how much would be taken from you vehicles battery and when.
    Ah, I think you see the problem.

    Work out the value of the electricity remaining in a car just home from rush hour it's not a lot.

    Once the batteries are spent the ESB would buy from the garages or whomever, and this would mean your new battery is far less expensive. Remember Lithium batteries can hold a 75% renaming capacity for several years of shallow cycles.
    again I refer you to peoples experience of laptop batteries, 75% after several years is what's promised but rarely delivered.


Advertisement