Wind farms - ugly truths

djpbarry wrote: »

You're not making any sense.

Suppose there were no wind turbines in Ireland. Suppose there was, say, 7 GW of installed thermal generation capacity. Suppose then comes along and installs, say, 2 GW of wind capacity.

Explain to me why any additional "back-up" thermal capacity needs to be installed in that scenario?

Me not make sense - heavens above !!

You are mixing installed vs dispatchable

Point 1 - If you have 7gw if installed + 2 Gw of wind - and a max demand of 5Gw - why are you wasting money installing wind and then pay that wind around €80/Mw (which has to be used first) when it can be achieved much cheaper through other means.

Point 2 - You need to install more flexible thermal (or storage) if you have wind and decommission existing plant - again more cost

you should also read http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/08/backup-reserve-levels-to-be-increased.html

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At some stage you should look at real data.

And it's OK to change your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence.

thank you

Coal and peat are base load. While they can react to demand much faster than nuclear they just can't ramp up in seconds like gas or pumped storage that's spinning in air.

Fuel mix
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/all-islandwindandfuelmixreport/

Why are we still arguing about spinning reserve when wind reduces the amount needed ? Nuclear on the other hand requires the most seeing as how they are the largest generating units. Luckily in the UK all providers have to subsidise the amount nuclear needs.

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1192957/power-system-reserve---no-need-build-wind-back-up

please stop dragging Nuclear into the argument - that was not mentioned in my original post

Ok that's the theory, the reality is

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nothing extra.

Wind reduces the base load, we got 25% of our electricity from wind last winter.

Wind cannot reduce "base load" - wind is not dispatchable

Since you are making the remarkable claim you need to provide the remarkable evidence of how much extra spinning reserve we need when we use wind.

Remember the existing reserve has to provide for the largest single generator going off-line. That's about 6MW for a wind turbine vs. 330MW for fossil ( vs. 3,200 MW for Hinkley C for UK planning )

when wind fails - a single turbine does not fail - it all fails (the good law does not blow in one place while not in another) - see the report for wind accuracy - http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All_Island_Wind_Forecast_Accuracy_Report_October_2013.pdf

UK figures showed that wind used roughly the same amount of spinning reserve fuel as other generators of similar capacity.

You keep quoting the UK - its a much more complex generation market than Ireland it does not have in excess of 50% of wind which could make its way on to the grid but which has to be limited to stop frequency fluctuations and cascading grid failure.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Divide the blue line price by 10 to see cents per unit.

Not so - does not include REFIT payment which is around €80 Kwh (I think)

So yet again we are seeing wind is more expensive than the open market for electricity

it was never cost justified

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please give a figure for "marginal".

How marginal is it compared to the two million tonnes of coal Moneypoint goes through a year ?

So its like your taxes (especially in the day when there was multiple tax rates - 10%,20%,30%,40%)

You pay tax at your highest tax rate. (called you marginal tax rate)

Read any wind farm EIS an they will talk about how many g/Kw they will save for all of the energy they product - typical figures are 700 to 900 g/kwh - but Eirgrid tell us we are down around 500 - so as you add a new wind turbine the marginal rate you save is less and less but the argument used that we need more and more wind keeps coming

now look at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/Tables/t0305.pdf

Ireland has one of the most Co2 polluting systems in the world
BUT
and this is my argument on page 1 of this thread

Is wind the best way of resolving this ?

For example if you convert the whole country to be gas based we would today be producing less C02 than we are currently but we don;t we leave things like the Eden derry peat burning going on because we have to protect other political resources like peat cutters

As I keep saying - wind displaces no thermal plant - we are not building much storage capability of any significance and all we keep adding is costs costs costs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

...
And there's smart meters and load shedding so a smarter grid can handle it better.

Now you are talking - load shedding / shifting is the cheapest form of "renewable" energy (or not used energy)

I have 4Kw of PV which I try and match up with running my HP, Dish & Cloths washer etc

I even claim for two Christmas days running my turkey cooked for nought

djpbarry wrote: »

Why are you plucking figures out of thin air to suit your argument?

which bit of air would that be - the bit that delivers 0Mw when its not moving about or the bit when wind farms get paid to produce electricity when its not needed

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/energy/SiteCollectionDocuments/Renewable-Energy/Refit%20Reference%20Prices.pdf

wind farms get around €80 per Mw (which includes getting paid when they are available to produce but the electricity is not used - constraint payments)

Who said anything about decommissioning? Again, you’re changing the scenario to suit your argument.

Did you read my original opening post ? - Item 2

It’s really simple. If you’ve got X GW of installed capacity, which comfortably meets peak demand, and you decide to install Y GW of wind capacity (Y < X), you don’t need to install any additional backup – it already exists.

again - did you read my original post - no decommissioning only installations = cost to the consumer

I say again - is this the most cost effective method to reduce fuel dependency - no one has done (or have not published) the CBA

So you have a car - all be it a bit old - but it works its maintained and over time as bits wear or as new better performing bits come on to the market they are replaced/added.

Then someone says - how about spending €4B on another car - now this new car is special - some days it will pull your old car (which will still have its engine running but don;t worry about that - its in case the new car fails) and some days your old car will have to pull the new one.

We will be able to predict when this happens - but only with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There will be some days your new car wants to pull you but you don't actually need to go anywhere but you will still be paying for its needs to pull you. Other days your new car will just be a dead weight behind your old car - worse than that you new car will be using some of the power of your old car just to be pulled about. It also cannot work in really bad weather it has to be shut down when this happens - again the old car will be dragging around the dead weight then too.

Your new car also has a couple of other odd features - its known to cause environmental noise impact which upsets its neighbours (almost regardless of the speed at which its going). Its can be seen from miles around - and ideally suited to the tops of some of the most stunning mountains/hill ranges in Ireland. It also requires many more cables to connect it - and track ways to drive up and look at it.

The only saving grace of you new car is that when it works your old car will use less fuel and generate less C02

Because we are bushed for time we have not looked at any other alternatives to doing this less fuel/less CO2 thing - we have also not carried any form of cost benefit analysis - or Strategic Environmental Assessments - nor do we want/expect/or demand that our planners when they write the planning conditions on how this new car should behave want them to actually implement those conditions or ensure they are followed

Can I interest you in such a proposition?

djpbarry wrote: »

New installations cost money? What a revelation.

Because it cuts CO2 emissions (which people seem to have completely forgotten about and/or dismissed because it doesn’t suit their argument), reduces fossil fuel consumption and is pretty damn cheap to run, given that there are zero fuel costs.

You have failed to cost justify (just like the irish Govt) that wind farms are the most economic way of creating C02 savings

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we do all of those things?

Cost

djpbarry wrote: »

Not really, because your analogy is flawed. But then, I think you know that.

Pray - tell me which bit does not make sense - because I don't know

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

....
then you are good to go for another 20 years.

You are obviously not an engineer - gear boxes are failing regularly

The massive charges Siemens incurred for inspecting and replacing main bearings in onshore wind turbines during its financial fourth quarter were due to an early degradation of the bearings in certain machines, Siemens Energy chief Lisa Davis said at a press conference.

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/11/16/faulty-turbines-sending-siemens-wind-power-division-broke-as-samsung-cuts-runs-from-europe/

These charges include: Costs for inspecting and replacing main bearings due to early degradation for a certain type of onshore wind turbine. These issues appear to be related to recent batches of bearings, and we are in close discussions with our supplier. And costs for blade repairs caused by harsh weather conditions, both offshore and onshore. This is a topic which we see across the industry and where we have already successfully implemented a design change for leading edge protection in our manufacturing facilities and will roll out a similar retrofit at affected
locations

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2014/corporate/2014-Q4/2014-Q4-speech.pdf

http://www.windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/515/are-transient-events-damaging-your-turbines-drivetrain

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/mechanical/understanding-root-causes-axial-cracking-wind-turbine-gearbox-bearings/

Markcheese wrote: »

Of course products fail - happens in cars /trucks all the time - doesn't mean CARS ARE WRONG- bit of a daft argument really -
One of the most consistantly windy turbine sites in the country in dunmanway has been in operation for over 15 years - the owner of the site is planning (for now) on refurbing the turbines when they revert to his ownership in a few years - not because it breaks down all the time - because they work -
Even the article posted quoting Siemens talks about some models of gearbox not all of them -

Who would not want to keep wind farms going if they had the finance to build one - at €80/Mwh guaranteed for 25 years (typical pay off time for a wind farm is around 7 years) its easy money paid for by the Irish consumer whom the Irish Government has no consideration for

Also "revert to his ownership" - most sites have a planning condition that site must be returned to original state once planning life has expired - out of interest which particular wind farm is this ?