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

Pylons

1…4142444647…53

Comments

  • #1292
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/esb-wind-energy-arm-turns-a-145m-loss-29648905.html

    ESB continues to make losses on its wind unit and that arm of the company now owes the rest of the group over 20 million euro. Guess the consumer will pick up this wind generated indulgence too!!


  • #1293
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Heroditas wrote: »
    Sheila, sorry it's next to impossible to read that last post of yours.

    However, two bits I gleaned from it and have to contradict:

    1. The grid can currently accommodate up to 40% wind at the moment and that is going to be increased by implementation of the DS3 programme.

    2. Wind does not lead lead to an increase in fossil fuels here.
    You won't use more fuel to generate the same amount of electricity, particularly when using modern CCGT plant. That may happen if the generation fleet was a mix of open cycle pant and peaking plant with a wind element thrown in but no grid operator in their right mind would use a large mix of what is extremely inefficient in the first place, i.e. Open cycle plant.

    Its actually around the 50% but I'm not to sure if she is talking about wind on the grid or wind penetration.


  • #1294
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/esb-wind-energy-arm-turns-a-145m-loss-29648905.html

    ESB continues to make losses on its wind unit and that arm of the company now owes the rest of the group over 20 million euro. Guess the consumer will pick up this wind generated indulgence too!!

    Read the link again

    The revenue from these wind farms are recorded in their own standalone accounts, and in the consolidated results of ESB Group," an ESB spokesman said.

    "It is not recorded in the accounts of ESB Wind Development Ltd so the €1.5m loss in 2012 in this company does not in any way reflect the performance of ESB wind generation business in the year, or indeed of the long-term performance of that company".


  • #1295
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Read the link FFS, hell even the bold part of your post.

    Do you understand simple English?? - the link clearly states that the ESB were forced to maintain a certain minimum price ie. they could not drop the price since it would discommode the competition according to the regulator


  • #1296
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Estate agents have a vested interests in inflating house prices - not writing them down. In any case its the local council and government valuation agency that wrote down the prices of the properties on the basis of their closeness to wind turbines.
    No. Estate agents have a vested interested in churn. Work hard and you might get 5-10% more comission, maybe. Work smart and sell two properties in the same time for a little below market value and you get nearly twice the same comission for hardly any effort.

    Bonus points if you can scare people into selling.


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Do you understand simple English?? - the link clearly states that the ESB were forced to maintain a certain minimum price ie. they could not drop the price since it would discommode the competition according to the regulator

    :rolleyes:
    Clearly you don't understand simple English. Read your post.


  • #1298
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Read the link again

    The revenue from these wind farms are recorded in their own standalone accounts, and in the consolidated results of ESB Group," an ESB spokesman said.

    "It is not recorded in the accounts of ESB Wind Development Ltd so the €1.5m loss in 2012 in this company does not in any way reflect the performance of ESB wind generation business in the year, or indeed of the long-term performance of that company".

    Which is contradicted by their statements relating to decreasing turnover and increased borrowings from their wind farm activities

    "Wind Development Limited reported turnover last year at €3.31m, down from €11.3m the previous year, according to accounts filed with the Companies Office"

    "At the end of last year, the company owed €20.9m to other ESB subsidiaries."


  • #1299
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Jester252 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    Clearly you don't understand simple English. Read your post.

    Are you claiming that ESB was not forced to maintain a minimum price to allow competitors into the market??


  • #1300
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »
    No-one should pay and notice to our energy costs soaring by 200-300% whilst France's stays static during the same time-frame.
    BTW France imports power from Germany because the German retail price is high, but the wholesale rate is low.

    And has fallen a lot in recent years. France to some extent uses nuclear but a not as much as in the past and they still hasn't got their new EDF nuclear plant built. The UK are locked into 9.25p per unit index linked for ages if they get theirs built.


  • #1301
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Which is contradicted by their statements relating to decreasing turnover and increased borrowings from their wind farm activities

    "Wind Development Limited reported turnover last year at €3.31m, down from €11.3m the previous year, according to accounts filed with the Companies Office"

    "At the end of last year, the company owed €20.9m to other ESB subsidiaries."

    A: Different companies, what your doing is similar to claiming a downturn in the automotive industry because Ford has slightly less profits

    B: Yet again another jump to conclusion. The money owned could be for any number of reasons i.e start up capital
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Are you claiming that ESB was not forced to maintain a minimum price to allow competitors into the market??

    Did I say that? Re-read your god damn post FFS. Here is the link you seem to have a hard time finding it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »
    Fair competition is good in my view. Wind increases the need for fossil fuels, what comes on when the wind doesn't blow. Remember the frequency instability issues wind power introduces once 20% penetration is achieved, it will never pay for itself. RE for RE's sake No, sustainable RE that is sustainable in country Yes i.e. a hydro power plant in Timbuktu is about as useful as a PV array in Tromso.
    The measured increase in fossil fuel is 0.1% of the fuel savings.

    That's the amount of reserve power the UK National Grid had to use when wind fell below predicted levels.

    Timbuktu is on the Niger river, it's a BIG river. Flow rate is 1,100m3/s The Shannon is only 208m3/s Yes the flow rate varies over the year, but a dam might be possible

    Tromso is located above the Artic Circle , so 24/7 sunshine for two months in summer. Also cooler temperatures increase solar panel efficiency If you lower the temperature by 20 degrees you will gain 10 % in efficiency
    It is cloudy so you won't be able to use concentrated solar
    http://weatherspark.com/averages/28894/Troms-Norway


    Renewables not being on demand isn't a problem because fossil fuels are there as backup.


  • #1303
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Not true either - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88936456&postcount=1177

    Reduced availability of relatively cheap and efficient power plants in January due to maintenance issues put upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices despite falling wholesale gas prices and near record volumes of electricity produced from wind turbines, according to the Bord Gais Energy Index.


    Picking one month is hardly indicative of the overall year on year trend.
    As I have said before, it is driven by the price of gas.


  • #1304
    Mullingar Sheila
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9 ✭Mullingar Sheila


    Dear All,
    Apologies if my last post was confusing, I must get my son to teach me how to drive this properly, please be paitent with me in the meantime.
    The SEAI report available here, http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/EPSSU_Publications/Renewable-Energy-in-Ireland-2012.pdf

    It trumpets €1Billion of savings.

    Take a look at Appendix 1. The PEE calulations do not take into account real world costs such as spinning reserve and parasitic power, ergo the savings are not based on fact. So why trumpet them? +where does it show the cost of those savings?

    "Renewables not being on demand isn't a problem because fossil fuels are there as backup.    " Exactly my point unsustainable wind RE is variable and not dispatchable and needs backup.

    The problem is the backup thermal plant has to stay spinning in order to stabilise the frequency when unsustainable wind RE is the RE source. Yes the DS3 will attempt to solve this issue, go to Pg 9 of http://www.eirgrid.com/media/DS3_Programme_Brochure.pdf. It introduces RoCoF protection? how does it do this, by turning off the protection. How much will DS3 cost to achieve this, an estimated €535Million.
    Frequency instability is a real issue today and can lead to blackouts today. We attempt to solve a problem and make the underlying cause worse by adding additional unsustaibanable wind RE, why not just solve the underlying problem.

    So we want to spend an estimated half a billion (lets watch that budget) to control something (unsustainable wind RE) that adds instability to the grid, that in itself is adding significant cost to a Country which already has one of the most expensive energy prices in Europe. Addendum, with the added benefit of Subsidies and Curtailments paid by the consumer (you) with the additional benefit of corporate tax relief for the privilege of receiving said subsidies and curtailments.

    Q. why don't we look at alternative RE sources? Have we looked at alternative RE sources. Take a look at Irelands NREAP.

    Captain Midnight, yes it is entirely possible to build as you suggest but in reality why would you build a hydro plant when you have an abundant solar source, I appreciate your argumentative point though. I don't wish to get into semantics, my point was that the RE source should be suitable for the environment it is placed in and in itself should be sustainable.

    Regarding the point about digging out the information on Irelands energy prices v Frances, I meant go an do it yourself. Don't believe all you read on these forums!

    Sheila.


  • #1305
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    What I taught the 19.6% is not wind penetration but gross renewable electricity.
    "Renewables not being on demand isn't a problem because fossil fuels are there as backup." Exactly my point unsustainable wind RE is variable and not dispatchable and needs backup.

    That applies to all wind / solar /wave etc. but its a non issue as we already have back up plants.
    The problem is the backup thermal plant has to stay spinning in order to stabilise the frequency when unsustainable wind RE is the RE source.

    Not correct, most backup plants don't stay spinning. Only time when that happen is wind reaches its max 50% on the grid but most of the time the non-back up thermal plants are off-line.
    So we want to spend an estimated half a billion (lets watch that budget) to control something (unsustainable wind RE) that adds instability to the grid, that in itself is adding significant cost to a Country which already has one of the most expensive energy prices in Europe. Addendum, with the added benefit of Subsidies and Curtailments paid by the consumer (you) with the additional benefit of corporate tax relief for the privilege of receiving said subsidies and curtailments.

    Electricity prices are effect greater by the price of gas and competition.
    Q. why don't we look at alternative RE sources? Have we looked at alternative RE sources. Take a look at Irelands NREAP.

    Captain Midnight, yes it is entirely possible to build as you suggest but in reality why would you build a hydro plant when you have an abundant solar source, I appreciate your argumentative point though. I don't wish to get into semantics, my point was that the RE source should be suitable for the environment it is placed in and in itself should be sustainable.

    Why would you build a solar plant when you have an abundant wind source? Can you see the massive contradiction you've just posted


  • #1306
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »
    Take a look at Appendix 1. The PEE calulations do not take into account real world costs such as spinning reserve and parasitic power, ergo the savings are not based on fact. So why trumpet them? +where does it show the cost of those savings?


    Spining reserve is required even if there are no renewables on the grid.
    Also, fossil fueled plant consumes parasitic power as well.

    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »
    Q. why don't we look at alternative RE sources? Have we looked at alternative RE sources. Take a look at Irelands NREAP.


    Because they're far more expensive.


  • #1307
    Mullingar Sheila
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9 ✭Mullingar Sheila


    Hi Jester252,
    we already have backup plants for what is currently there and most of these have been ungraded in the last 10+ years to modern efficient CCGT plants.
    I see we may have to agree to differ on the need for spinning reserve (and parasitic power in PEE calculations probably), that is fair enough dissent protects democracy as they say so keep asking the Q's and investigating the answers. I would encourage you to investigate further RoCoF protection and why it exemplifies some of the bizarre thinking behind unsustainable wind RE, certainly don't take my word for it.

    Abundant 'free' wind source (for no more then 30% of the time) that has significant costs in attempting to capture and generate energy from it and induces grid instability, why not investigate other 'free' RE such as anerobic digestion and Biomass (convert Moneypoint for example - 40% RE there in one hit with no need to double the size of the grid). Wind is free in the same way Water is free.

    Debate is good, we quickly get to the instability and the RoCoF protection. I'll try an explain this as best I can but bear with me.

    The 50Hz frequency on the grid is a product of the 3000rpm spin of the generators, the grid and the products than consume this energy are engineered to operate at this 50Hz frequency. Simple enough.
    Now induce unsustainable wind RE into the grid.
    Wind is variable and non-despatchable. The wind turbines do not operate at 3000rpm which reduces the 50Hz frequency on the grid.
    The more variable unsustainable wind RE the greater the frequency fluctuations away from 50Hz.
    The 'back-up' thermal plant (gas coal etc) has to be kept spinning simply to stabilise the frequency to prevent blackouts.
    Spinning = burning fuel; but not generating electricity. This is why the PEE definition has to be looked at closely and any alleged savings closely scrutinized.

    So when I say wind is unsustainable RE I mean specifically that wind beyond the % penetration on the grid that induces this instability. Wind RE up to this point IS sustainable and SHOULD be part of the overall mix of REs.
    This magic cut off figure is 20% which is approximately where we are at in Ireland today.

    Ireland should be looking at RE but not exclusively at one to the exclusion of others.
    We are somewhat unique in that we are an Island grid in the western world with few inter-connectors. Denmark has a lot of wind but it uses inter-connectors to Sweden/Norway (in the east of the country) to export wind RE to Sweden/Norway but guess what, those inter-connectors were previously built to import hydro power from Sweden/Norway and hence were not an additional cost to the implementation of wind RE. Effectively they act as a surge protection mechanism to overcome frequency instability by balancing the frequency instability against the Nordic grid.
    Compare Ireland's existing wind generating capacity (~2gW) as a % against Ireland's thermal capacity (~8gW) on an island grid with Denmark's wind generating capacity (~6gW) as a % against the thermal generating capacity of the Nordic/European inter-connected grid (~650gW).

    25% v .009%

    This graphically explains the need for the €535million RoCoF protection system and the 6 additional inter-connectors @ €600Million each; not to mention the €4.2Billion GridLink upgrade and the €2million/mw of onshore wind energy cost. All of this spend will have to be financed and we already know that the well is not exactly deep in Ireland thanks to our Celtic Tiger 'Party'. If a guaranteed return for this spend does not exist is it a gamble Ireland can afford to take? Realistically what is the price of power in UK and France? Also bear in mind that surplus energy in Denmark & Germany can have negative energy prices due to bad wind contracts i.e. curtailment charges.

    Other forms of RE are dis-patchable and hence do not suffer from this instability problem. Anaerobic Digestors may be a small % more expensive than a wind turbine up-front but the total overall spend is significantly lower, massively lower, as a secondary grid with inter-connectors would not be required.

    The reality of Ireland's grid today is that it is a good grid, it is fit for purpose and there is a good mix of generating plants on it. Sustainable RE is a must going forward. I simply caution against going down an unsustainable RE direction at this moment in time when alternatives exist that suit our country just as well - better in fact when you bear frequency instability in mind. I would hope that we would all agree on this point.

    Again, I hope this helps, must dash lectures call.
    Sheila

    p.s. all this is on the 'generation' side of the scales, why don't we put significant resources into the 'use' side of the scales? i.e. invest in insulating our homes and offices to reduce energy use. This would result in energy savings year on year on year... I wonder how many construction jobs would be created as a result? Shhhh, don't tell anyone it's way to simple an idea.


  • #1308
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »
    Hi Jester252,
    we already have backup plants for what is currently there and most of these have been ungraded in the last 10+ years to modern efficient CCGT plants.
    I see we may have to agree to differ on the need for spinning reserve (and parasitic power in PEE calculations probably), that is fair enough dissent protects democracy as they say so keep asking the Q's and investigating the answers. I would encourage you to investigate further RoCoF protection and why it exemplifies some of the bizarre thinking behind unsustainable wind RE, certainly don't take my word for it.

    We have enough thermal capacity in Ireland regardless of wind no more is need.
    Abundant 'free' wind source (for no more then 30% of the time) that has significant costs in attempting to capture and generate energy from it and induces grid instability, why not investigate other 'free' RE such as anerobic digestion and Biomass (convert Moneypoint for example - 40% RE there in one hit with no need to double the size of the grid). Wind is free in the same way Water is free.

    The cost of the biofuels for Moneypoint would be astronomical high. LOL at comparing wind and water, does the wind that goes through a turbine requires cleaning and processing?
    Debate is good, we quickly get to the instability and the RoCoF protection. I'll try an explain this as best I can but bear with me.

    The 50Hz frequency on the grid is a product of the 3000rpm spin of the generators, the grid and the products than consume this energy are engineered to operate at this 50Hz frequency. Simple enough.
    Now induce unsustainable wind RE into the grid.
    Wind is variable and non-despatchable. The wind turbines do not operate at 3000rpm which reduces the 50Hz frequency on the grid.
    The more variable unsustainable wind RE the greater the frequency fluctuations away from 50Hz.
    The 'back-up' thermal plant (gas coal etc) has to be kept spinning simply to stabilise the frequency to prevent blackouts.
    Spinning = burning fuel; but not generating electricity. This is why the PEE definition has to be looked at closely and any alleged savings closely scrutinized.

    First Coal and Gas are not back up, Oil is the back up thermal plant type in Ireland.
    Second the back up oil power plants aren't always spinning the 50hz is maintained by the full time coal and gas power plants. The new grid will allow for a higher tolerance in the frequency of the electricity, increasing it for 2 hz. Also Ireland has very little blackout and the only major brownouts where due to a trade union strike not wind so stop scaremongering.
    So when I say wind is unsustainable RE I mean specifically that wind beyond the % penetration on the grid that induces this instability. Wind RE up to this point IS sustainable and SHOULD be part of the overall mix of REs.
    This magic cut off figure is 20% which is approximately where we are at in Ireland today.

    Stop right there are go learn the difference between wind penetration and gross electricity production. Also supply a source for that "magic 20%"
    Ireland should be looking at RE but not exclusively at one to the exclusion of others.

    Its a good thing that the ReFit scheme covers a vast number of renewable sources and SEAI are studying other sources. Have you any support to back up that outlandish claim?
    We are somewhat unique in that we are an Island grid in the western world with few inter-connectors. Denmark has a lot of wind but it uses inter-connectors to Sweden/Norway (in the east of the country) to export wind RE to Sweden/Norway but guess what, those inter-connectors were previously built to import hydro power from Sweden/Norway and hence were not an additional cost to the implementation of wind RE. Effectively they act as a surge protection mechanism to overcome frequency instability by balancing the frequency instability against the Nordic grid.
    Compare Ireland's existing wind generating capacity (~2gW) as a % against Ireland's thermal capacity (~8gW) on an island grid with Denmark's wind generating capacity (~6gW) as a % against the thermal generating capacity of the Nordic/European inter-connected grid (~650gW).

    25% v .009%

    Denmark will never need 650gW just like Ireland doesn't need 8gW, we have enough thermal capacity to run the country. Also P.S Ireland has access to the UK and European thermal power, so you might what to redo your calculation
    This graphically explains the need for the €535million RoCoF protection system and the 6 additional inter-connectors @ €600Million each; not to mention the €4.2Billion GridLink upgrade and the €2million/mw of onshore wind energy cost. All of this spend will have to be financed and we already know that the well is not exactly deep in Ireland thanks to our Celtic Tiger 'Party'. If a guaranteed return for this spend does not exist is it a gamble Ireland can afford to take? Realistically what is the price of power in UK and France? Also bear in mind that surplus energy in Denmark & Germany can have negative energy prices due to bad wind contracts i.e. curtailment charges.

    You make no sense in one paragraph you complain about Ireland being alone, now your complaining about the cost of connecting Ireland to the EU super grid. Make up your mind. BTW the gird improvement are not just for wind.
    Other forms of RE are dis-patchable and hence do not suffer from this instability problem. Anaerobic Digestors may be a small % more expensive than a wind turbine up-front but the total overall spend is significantly lower, massively lower, as a secondary grid with inter-connectors would not be required.

    Inter-connectors and the grid improvement would be required in order to connect use to the Supergrid, Also there is no secondary grid so get that out for your head. Don't forget the fuel costs
    The reality of Ireland's grid today is that it is a good grid, it is fit for purpose and there is a good mix of generating plants on it. Sustainable RE is a must going forward. I simply caution against going down an unsustainable RE direction at this moment in time when alternatives exist that suit our country just as well - better in fact when you bear frequency instability in mind. I would hope that we would all agree on this point.

    Ireland grid was made in the 1970/1980. Grid 25 is to update the grid into a modern grid that will help improve efficiency of transport, allow the gird to to have a higher tolerance, and enable it to be connected to the EU super-grid. The old Dublin to Limerick road is fine and does the job, should we have not build the motorway?
    Again, I hope this helps, must dash lectures call.
    Sheila

    p.s. all this is on the 'generation' side of the scales, why don't we put significant resources into the 'use' side of the scales? i.e. invest in insulating our homes and offices to reduce energy use. This would result in energy savings year on year on year... I wonder how many construction jobs would be created as a result? Shhhh, don't tell anyone it's way to simple an idea.

    We I guess you failed to notice the massive grants that are in place for energy improvement in the home. ;)


  • #1309
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Its not a straw man, when looking at solutions to Ireland energy problem, you need to use Irish energy report. Its utter madness to use foreign reports seen as they are build for the country that the report originated in. Renewable energy sources available for exploiting in France etc. might not be available in Ireland.

    Solar and geothermal will help with the heating, Biofuals with the transport. but the geothermal will need electricity, transport will need electricity (Luas/Dart). We need wind to help us reach the 2020 electricity target.
    Jester252 wrote: »
    When you say foreign do you mean the authors or the report? There is no point trying to wedge in a energy report build for Italy into Ireland's energy situation.

    Again Jester, a straw man. I recommend reading foreign reports as well as Irish. What you seem to favour is to look at Ireland in isolation, and also to act only on what is immediately beneficial to Ireland, with a focus on monetary benefit.

    I think this is very wrong, it lacks vision and a sense of perspective, and it has not served Ireland well in the past. Look at the planning and development mistakes made.

    I take on board all the suggestions that cost for alternatives may be prohibitive, but again, money is to be spent on the over-ambitious upgrade that would go down a treat for many RE alternatives research and implementation I'm sure.

    It's a question of priorities. EU targets are recommendations as far as I understand, and countries are sovereign to decide what they wish to prioritise afaik.

    Again, immediate profit making or money saving need not be the target. Again, large sums of money are going to be spent, what Ireland decides to spend it on can be altered.


  • #1310
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    The emissions targets on member states are binding. Measures are not.
    For Ireland, it's either renewable energy or slash our meat herds and the industry associated with that.


  • #1311
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Again Jester, a straw man. I recommend reading foreign reports as well as Irish. What you seem to favour is to look at Ireland in isolation, and also to act only on what is immediately beneficial to Ireland, with a focus on monetary benefit.
    I think this is very wrong, it lacks vision and a sense of perspective, and it has not served Ireland well in the past. Look at the planning and development mistakes made.

    Its not straw man. There is no rhyme or reason to base Ireland energy policy on a German centred report. It would be like trying to fix a Ford Festia using a repair instruction for a Nissan Micra.
    I take on board all the suggestions that cost for alternatives may be prohibitive, but again, money is to be spent on the over-ambitious upgrade that would go down a treat for many RE alternatives research and implementation I'm sure.
    Well the gird upgrades would have happen regardless of what renewable source being used. As I said before ReFit is open to most renewable sources, with extra scheme for some developing tech
    It's a question of priorities. EU targets are recommendations as far as I understand, and countries are sovereign to decide what they wish to prioritise afaik.

    You might what to refer this to the EU commission seen as it is looking to fine Ireland €25,000 a day for failing to meet some of the demand for the 2020 targets
    Again, immediate profit making or money saving need not be the target. Again, large sums of money are going to be spent, what Ireland decides to spend it on can be altered.

    Lets just pay fines, which are going to get larger, while we wait for some future solution to today's problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    Mullingar Sheila
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9 ✭Mullingar Sheila


    Hi Jester,
    "Its a good thing that the ReFit scheme covers a vast number of renewable sources and SEAI are studying other sources. Have you any support to back up that outlandish claim?"

    Ireland's NREAP has 3 RE's, 90% of the subsidies for these 3 go to wind. Please look up Ireland's NREAP as the primary source and not the SEAI version of events, the info is there, just look it up, read the 400+ pages on the NREAP. Not my words.

    Massive grants for home improvements, please look up difference between deep retrofit and shallow retrofit, SEAI are in the latter Dept. There is a significant difference, look it up. SEAI retrofit make a difference but it is currently very small scale.

    The magic 20%, go look up the 2004 ESBNG report. Not my words. It refers to generation capacity, naturally this fluctuates as a % of gross production versus the power demand at any given time. I understand this concept.

    Yes Denmark does not need the large Gw but it does stabalise the frequency issues with unsustainable wind RE, we don't have this on our Ireland network and hence the need for the €535million spend on 'control-ability'. Where else has this been tried? nowhere, we are guinea pigs for unsustainable wind RE. I think you misunderstand the significant issue the induced frequency instability is, it takes time and space to analyise this and to see just how big the issue is.
    Should we play 'risk' with Ireland's economic future just to see if an Island grid can resolve the unsustainable wind RE frequency instability issues? when we don't have to. How many island grids who will want this technology?

    Moneypoint conversion to biofuel, astronomically high? Check out Drax and the improvements in the supply chain. The world has moved on a lot in the last few years.

    I suspect we will have to disagree with our respective viewpoints which is fine as it is allowed you know, I wouldn't rubbish your perspective it's simply that I don't agree with it.
    Sheila.


  • #1313
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    SEAI also give grants for deep retrofits.
    Grant numbers have dropped from 50,000 a few years ago to approx 15,000 last year. Grants are not the problem. People are simply not interested. Utilities can't even give away free insulation in the UK.

    If biofuel is the answer, please explain why, despite such generous REFIT support for it in Ireland, there hadn't been any real uptake here.


  • #1314
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »
    Hi Jester,
    Ireland's NREAP has 3 RE's, 90% of the subsidies for these 3 go to wind. Please look up Ireland's NREAP as the primary source and not the SEAI version of events, the info is there, just look it up, read the 400+ pages on the NREAP. Not my words.
    Wrong
    REFIT tariffs are currently as follows:
    Large Wind: €66.353/MWh
    Small Wind: €68.681/ MWh
    Hydro: €83.814/ MWh 106
    Landfill Gas: €81.486/ MWh
    Biomass: €83.814/ MWh.

    These reference prices are subject to annual increases, if any, in the consumer price index.

    In 2009, the terms and conditions were announced for REFIT for additional categories,
    subject to state aid clearance (these reference prices not being subject to annual increases
    in the consumer price index.)
    Ocean (wave and tidal): €220/ MWh
    Offshore wind €140/MWh

    In May 2010 a revised set of tariffs for the biomass combustion, Anaerobic Digestion and
    biomass CHP were announced.

    The Tariffs are as follows:
    AD CHP ≤500 kW €150/MWh
    AD CHP >500 kW €130/MWh
    AD (non CHP) ≤500kW €110/MWh
    AD (non CHP) >500kW €100/MWh
    Biomass CHP ≤1500kW €140/MWh
    Biomass CHP >1500kW €120/MWh

    Biomass Combustion (including co-firing in existing plant*[subject to a change in the Refit
    terms and conditions to permit this]):
    For using energy crops €95/MWh
    For all other biomass €85/MWh

    Looks like wind has the smallest payout.
    Massive grants for home improvements, please look up difference between deep retrofit and shallow retrofit, SEAI are in the latter Dept. There is a significant difference, look it up. SEAI retrofit make a difference but it is currently very small scale.

    Wrong

    Solar panels grant
    geothermal grant
    internal insulation grant
    external insulation grant
    boiler grant
    cavity insulation grant
    heat exchangers grant
    Attic insulation grant
    Windows grant
    The magic 20%, go look up the 2004 ESBNG report. Not my words. It refers to generation capacity, naturally this fluctuates as a % of gross production versus the power demand at any given time. I understand this concept.

    So its not wind penetration?
    Are you talking about capacity factor?
    Any links to the report because any 2004 ESBNG reports I've read only have 20 in it when it's saying 200X
    Yes Denmark does not need the large Gw but it does stabalise the frequency issues with unsustainable wind RE, we don't have this on our Ireland network and hence the need for the €535million spend on 'control-ability'. Where else has this been tried? nowhere, we are guinea pigs for unsustainable wind RE. I think you misunderstand the significant issue the induced frequency instability is, it takes time and space to analyise this and to see just how big the issue is.
    Should we play 'risk' with Ireland's economic future just to see if an Island grid can resolve the unsustainable wind RE frequency instability issues? when we don't have to. How many island grids who will want this technology?

    Our grid is stable, when was the last time we lost power due to instability? The grid improve will allow for a higher tolerance of grid frequency, and we will always be an Island grid unless we construct a high power AC line to England. What to bet how much that will cost?
    Moneypoint conversion to biofuel, astronomically high? Check out Drax and the improvements in the supply chain. The world has moved on a lot in the last few years.

    So ignore the cost of fuel and ignore that the Refit scheme that sets the price for biomass at around double the price for wind per MW?


  • #1315
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Its not straw man. There is no rhyme or reason to base Ireland energy policy on a German centred report. It would be like trying to fix a Ford Festia using a repair instruction for a Nissan Micra.


    Well the gird upgrades would have happen regardless of what renewable source being used. As I said before ReFit is open to most renewable sources, with extra scheme for some developing tech



    You might what to refer this to the EU commission seen as it is looking to fine Ireland €25,000 a day for failing to meet some of the demand for the 2020 targets



    Lets just pay fines, which are going to get larger, while we wait for some future solution to today's problem.

    No, we will have to agree to disagree on that. There is always something to learn from looking at what is being done abroad, even when the variables are different. As a matter of fact I remember foreign models being mentioned several times on Irish documentation so thankfully your view is not shared by all.

    I don't have the technical knowledge to follow your very specific quotes, but the bottom line is that your attitude is simply dismissive of all other options. There are always other options.
    And again the every little helps approach to reducing emissions is downright dismissed.

    I have to say I am happy to find that all documentation I have read on the matter, and in general, ministerial approach, do not seem as dismissive as your approach, so I think there is reasonable hope that changes will be made to the current project.

    I am currently in a town with a plentiful supply of nuclear, wind, and hydro energy, where they are replacing all town owned gymnasiums, concert halls, and other collective building roofs with photovoltaic panels. They also have insulation schemes and incentives going, and they are just about to pilot a scheme where homeowners will be encouraged and somehow supported to charge their electric cars with Private PV installations.
    Should they adopt your attitude, these people would simply bask in the comfort of their nuclear plant energy, and maybe hydro, after all, these installations are there years, more than likely paid for by now, they are the quickest, easiest option (and considering I can see the nuclear plant out my window, more than likely the cheapest transmission option too). They would not have "needed" to bother with wind either.


  • #1316
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Papers cant seem to make up their minds wind farms bad ... now wind farms good

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/wind-farms-can-help-slash-energy-bills-259224.html


  • #1317
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Heroditas wrote: »

    If biofuel is the answer, please explain why, despite such generous REFIT support for it in Ireland, there hadn't been any real uptake here.

    According to Minister O'Dowd in the speech I linked to earlier in thread (can't link right now) it's a chicken and egg situation where farmers cannot/will not switch while biofuel customers will not invest or commit to using the potential supply and vice versa. Someone needs to take the first step, or some official commitment made, before this all starts. Silly qui pro quo really.


  • #1318
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Papers cant seem to make up their minds wind farms bad ... now wind farms good

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/wind-farms-can-help-slash-energy-bills-259224.html

    Meanwhile in France a new report (and a u.s. One) confirm that wind turbines have an effect on climate : they prevent the ground from cooling down at night, which leads to a slight rise in temperatures for areas concerned, and less precipitation, and also have an effect on wind direction. For continental Europe with the 2020 targets, the climate effect is minimal, however this effect is said to be dependent on the concentration of turbines relative to surface area, so say for an area the size of ... 3 counties, with a high concentration of machines, this could be more significant.
    Can't link right now, article in Le Monde title Les Eoliennes modifient-Elles le climat europeen ? (Please forgive autocorrect errors)


  • #1319
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Heroditas wrote: »
    The emissions targets on member states are binding. Measures are not.
    For Ireland, it's either renewable energy or slash our meat herds and the industry associated with that.

    Your wrong there - changing from coal and peat to gas will save far more emissions than wasting resources on failing renewables like wind. That is why the US is cutting emissions far faster than the EU. Irelands emmissions can also be cut significantly by a variety of simple energy saving measures which are increasingly helped by technology in both home and business. Restoring natural carbon sinks like the BNM midland bogs would also help hugely - and would make a lot more sense than destroying them for good with roads and concrete to support all these giant Wind turbines projects


  • #1320
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Papers cant seem to make up their minds wind farms bad ... now wind farms good

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/wind-farms-can-help-slash-energy-bills-259224.html

    According to the SEI which as already pointed out here have vested interest issues


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Your wrong there - changing from coal and peat to gas will save far more emissions than wasting resources on failing renewables like wind. That is why the US is cutting emissions far faster than the EU. Irelands emmissions can also be cut significantly by a variety of simple energy saving measures which are increasingly helped by technology in both home and business. Restoring natural carbon sinks like the BNM midland bogs would also help hugely - and would make a lot more sense than destroying them for good with roads and concrete to support all these giant Wind turbines projects


    This has been discussed already.
    You ignored it the last time so there's not much point discussing it again. Switching from coal and peat to gas will not allow Ireland to hit those targets. Anyway, peat is already being phased out as part of the carbon emissions reduction programme.
    To eliminate coal will require a sharp increase in the price of carbon which will result in an overall wholesale MWh price increase here.


Advertisement