Wind farms - ugly truths

Capt'n Midnight · 10-10-2015 12:35PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

As for Germany

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3261018/German-consumers-face-billions-extra-costs-new-power-lines.html

TBH I'm more surprised that The Daily Mail isn't saying wind power gives you cancer than anything else.

And YES I think underground cables in all but the most exceptional cases is a complete waste of money

PS: I suggest people read the submissions from ordinary people on the Government's recent energy white paper if they want to know what the mood is out there as regards our energy future. It certainly suggests the public are getting sick of the current wind developer led energy policies in this country.

The Energiewende policy gets a fair bit of public support in Germany but of course there will be nay-sayers. BTW a lot of the wind development is by local co-ops.

http://energytransition.de/2015/01/49-percent-of-germans-doubt-success-of-energiewende/

95 percent of those surveyed believe the transition has a positive impact on the job market;
94 percent agree that it makes Germany more competitive;
94 percent say it reduces energy imports;
93 percent think it helps protect the climate;
and 91 percent say it makes consumers less dependent on power providers.

Of course everyone would be happier if it was cheaper. But that's true of almost everything.

Meanwhile the nuclear clean up will cost €75Bn. This works out at €2Bn per reactor for decomissioning and about the same again for waste storage repository. That's over €3Bn per MW. Renewables don't have anything like these end of life costs.

Birdnuts · 10-10-2015 01:43PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

.

And YES I think underground cables in all but the most exceptional cases is a complete waste of money

The Energiewende policy gets a fair bit of public support in Germany but of course there will be nay-sayers. BTW a lot of the wind development is by local co-ops.

http://energytransition.de/2015/01/49-percent-of-germans-doubt-success-of-energiewende/

Of course everyone would be happier if it was cheaper. But that's true of almost everything.

.

The pylons are a waste of money whether they go overground or underground as they are simply another expensive handout to prop up wind developers. If Germans are happy with high energy prices and a heavy dependence on coal for power generation(particulary in cold winters) then best of luck to them. It doesn't translate that it is in the best interests of Ireland or any other country to follow the same path. Clearly the the likes of the UK and Spain have said enough is enough and have put an end to the wind developer gravy train.

As for the supposed wind industry commissoned German "survey" you linked too. The consultants responsible have an interesting track record going on their wiki page

"Oliver Wyman in 2007 named Anglo Irish Bank as the best-performing bank in the world over the prior five years in a piece of research published to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.[10] The next year the Irish Government was forced to nationalise the Bank at a cost of €25 billion.[11][12][13]"

Sounds like a crowd with their finger on the pulse allright!!:rolleyes:

In reality the "German" model has many issues

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21594336-germanys-new-super-minister-energy-and-economy-has-his-work-cut-out-sunny-windy-costly

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/05/24/the-burning-issue-of-german-coal/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/eu-germany-idUKL6N0KH2WF20140107

http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/18/leading-industry-expert-slams-germanys-wild-foray-into-green-energies-unaffordable-absolute-imbecility/#sthash.3Nh7xhYu.dpbs

djpbarry · 10-10-2015 04:23PM

SeanW wrote: »

Even with all the one off houses Ireland is a lot more unspoit than without windmills than with them.

I’m thinking more of the vast, man-made, agricultural landscape than one-off houses.

SeanW wrote: »

On what planet? Germany doesn't co-operate with its neighbors, it destablises them.

Just to clarify – you’re linking to an article to argue that, sometimes, wind produces too much energy?

SeanW wrote: »

So this idea that the retail price is not a good measure is bizarre.
....
And it is literally cheaper to buy a Kilowatt-hour in Kiribati than Denmark, as I showed above. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is caused by anything other than green policy.

It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that Kiribati is one of the poorest countries in the world, while Denmark is one of the wealthiest?

djpbarry · 10-10-2015 04:24PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Yeah - wind energy is free!! Dear god we're back to that simplistic nonsense.

Are you even reading my posts? Where the hell did I say anything was free?

Birdnuts wrote: »

You've recycled some old posts with back of the envelope calculations that prove nothing and have very little relevance as to the operation of a national grid forced to accept high levels of variable wind energy.

So you’re just ignoring that the figures I used were published by the managers of said grid? You’re dismissing the (admittedly rough) calculations because they don’t support your argument. How about challenging the calculations, or produce some of your own?

Birdnuts wrote: »

The relationship between high retail energy costs and installed wind capacity cannot be denied.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/electricitypriceseurope.jpg

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rstudioscreensnapz027.png

Dude, you’re the one in denial. You’ve already linked to those graphs. Look at the graph in that second link: 0.02 cents per kWh per KW per capita. That’s tiny.

Birdnuts wrote: »

As highlighted by myself and others wind does FA to reduce our dependency on imported power...

Wind does nothing to reduce Ireland’s dependency on imported power? Well, that’s just simply not true, is it?

Birdnuts · 10-10-2015 04:48PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Wind does nothing to reduce Ireland’s dependency on imported power? Well, that’s just simply not true, is it?

Not to any significant or meaningfull extent and if thats the best arguement you have for the billions wasted on it then its a pretty p*ss poor one. Check out winds contribution to our energy demand in recent nights on the Eirgrid site and tell me how wind gives us energy independence?????????? If thats your defination of energy independence then you must be living a very frugal existence in a cave somewhere:rolleyes:

Birdnuts · 10-10-2015 04:56PM

djpbarry wrote: »

So you’re just ignoring that the figures I used were published by the managers of said grid? You’re dismissing the (admittedly rough) calculations because they don’t support your argument. How about challenging the calculations, or produce some of your own?

Lets indeed have a look at the realities of wind energy on the Irish grid - behind the spin put out by certain state agencies and others who seek to push wind power at any cost to the consumer and society in general.

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/12/seais-quantifying-savings-from.html

Capt'n Midnight · 10-10-2015 06:18PM

Ireland uses 5 billion cubic meters of gas a year. At 11KWh/m3
Up to 5% of this could be hydrogen.

So our gas network could accommodate 2.75TWhr of surplus energy annually. Actually it would be a lot more than that due to conversion inefficiencies.

Having too much wind energy isn't really an issue provided there's some joined up thinking about it. We can already export over interconnectors. Other time insensitive uses could be found, we can already use pumped storage as a sink.

The global market for sodium hypochlorite is about two billion tonnes.
Or to put it another way, electricity + salty water = bleach.
It's another way to use surplus electricity.

Having extra lines means there is more redundancy on the network since there'd be more way to route power around a problem. Also means industry could setup in more places. And since the ESB runs fibre along pylons the all important connectivity is there too.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-10-2015 06:22PM

Note:
http://www.bordnamona.ie/news/latest/bord-na-mona-announces-biggest-change-of-land-use-in-modern-irish-history/

Bord na Móna is announcing the biggest change of use involving Irish land in modern history. 125,000 acres of bogland that are now being used to provide energy peat to three powerstations will transition to new uses by 2030. After 2030 the company will no longer harvest energy peat and will have completed its move to new sustainable businesses, located across its bogs and landholding. The move will involve the rehabilitation of tens of thousands of acres of Irish bogs providing new biodiverse habitats that can also support new eco-tourism and community amenity resources.

fclauson · 12-10-2015 07:46AM

The view is that by 2030 there will be no Peat left to harvest

they should have stopped years ago - hugely destructive for a very poor heat source

plastering wind farms over the bogs also damages them due to drainage and drying out around roads and turbine installations

Bogs are CO2 sinks in a massive scale

djpbarry · 13-10-2015 04:40PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Not to any significant or meaningfull extent and if thats the best arguement you have for the billions wasted on it then its a pretty p*ss poor one.

I’ve produced some figures showing the estimated €4 billion spent on wind is a reasonably good investment, on the basis of power generated and emissions reduction.

How about you counter with some figures of your own?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Check out winds contribution to our energy demand in recent nights on the Eirgrid site and tell me how wind gives us energy independence?????????? If thats your defination of energy independence then you must be living a very frugal existence in a cave somewhere:rolleyes:

Ah, the old “wind turbines don’t produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow” argument. I suppose it has been a few pages now since someone’s tossed that one out – it was due another showing.

And less of the personal jibes please.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Lets indeed have a look at the realities of wind energy on the Irish grid - behind the spin put out by certain state agencies and others who seek to push wind power at any cost to the consumer and society in general.

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/12/seais-quantifying-savings-from.html

Is there something specific in that blog post you’d like to draw people’s attention to? Because it seems to be critiquing a specific SEAI report, which, as far as I am aware, nobody on this thread previously mentioned?

Ergo, you seem to be countering an argument that nobody has made?

Markcheese · 13-10-2015 05:23PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ireland uses 5 billion cubic meters of gas a year. At 11KWh/m3
Up to 5% of this could be hydrogen.

So our gas network could accommodate 2.75TWhr of surplus energy annually. Actually it would be a lot more than that due to conversion inefficiencies.

Having too much wind energy isn't really an issue provided there's some joined up thinking about it. We can already export over interconnectors. Other time insensitive uses could be found, we can already use pumped storage as a sink.

The global market for sodium hypochlorite is about two billion tonnes.
Or to put it another way, electricity + salty water = bleach.
It's another way to use surplus electricity.

Having extra lines means there is more redundancy on the network since there'd be more way to route power around a problem. Also means industry could setup in more places. And since the ESB runs fibre along pylons the all important connectivity is there too.

Around 5 % of our gas system could be hydrogen- but of course we'd have to build a hydrogen plant (another capital cost) and the conversion rate from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is pretty poor so the wind power in is gonna have to be pretty much free - also to get any use from the hydrogen plant in summer (low gas useage times) you'll probably need a gas storage facility - another cost - that's not saying it wouldn't or couldn't be a worth while venture -
Are interconnectors all that great? Say we have a very wind orientated system (subsidised by the state) - then there's an energy crisis (say Europe wide) - so our subsidised wind electricity gets very expensive or exported (via our state paid Interconnecters) because it's a cross European market -

fclauson · 13-10-2015 08:39PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ve produced some figures showing the estimated €4 billion spent on wind is a reasonably good investment, on the basis of power generated and emissions reduction.

You argument that wind can deliver at around €34 does not stand up when you have to factor in back up plant

also these figures did not include grid interconnects/pylons etc

Capt'n Midnight · 13-10-2015 10:11PM

fclauson wrote: »

You argument that wind can deliver at around €34 does not stand up when you have to factor in back up plant

also these figures did not include grid interconnects/pylons etc

The backup plant already exists so ZERO capital cost.

The backup plant has to run anyway to cover the largest thermal generator. So pretty close to ZERO extra fossil fuel burnt.*

*Actual measured figure is 0.081% of fossil fuel saved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/10091645/The-badger-cull-is-no-black-and-white-issue.html

Now the National Grid has studied what actually happens in practice, with explosive, if surprising, results. Between April 2011 and September 2012 – its head of energy strategy, Richard Smith, told the Hay Festival – wind produced some 23,700 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power. Only 22GWh of power from fossil fuels was needed to fill the gaps when the wind didn’t blow. That’s less than a thousandth of the turbines’ output – and, as it happens, less than a tenth of what was needed to back up conventional power stations.

It proved to be much the same with emissions. Wind saved nearly 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over that 18 months; standby burning of fossil fuels only reduced this by 8,800 tonnes, or 0.081 per cent.

Not surprisingly, given these figures, no new fossil‑fuel power station has been built to provide back‑up for wind farms, and none is in prospect.

see also http://www.gizmag.com/uk-national-grid-wind-data/28046/

Markcheese · 13-10-2015 10:51PM

Yes the back up plant already exists - so zero additional capital for our backup -
It's not all paid for though - and even when it is paid there'll still be significant maintenance/upgrade costs,plus return on investment (and profit) all to be returned from far lower electrical production -

Birdnuts · 14-10-2015 12:19AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Is there something specific in that blog post you’d like to draw people’s attention to? Because it seems to be critiquing a specific SEAI report, which, as far as I am aware, nobody on this thread previously mentioned?

Ergo, you seem to be countering an argument that nobody has made?

You obviously didn't bother reading the link. The SEAI are trying to justify wind energy on the same basis as yourself by pushing a certain "study" on the matter. The link I posted outlines many of the major flaws in that study and in turn your analysis.

fclauson · 14-10-2015 12:48AM

Back up plant is not zero costs

Much of the Irish plant is undergoing a regeneration/replacement program - and this fair its been doing sterling work for years. That is a cost.

What is the additional cost (back to my very first post) is wind.

We can pay for the replacement of existing plant but we know have to in addition pay for the deployment of wind and its infrastructure.

And we are paying for that at a rate of €80/Mw while non wind plant gets market rate. That model is unjust, and skewed towards a car crash of expensive electricity for the consumer (we have seen the consumer price charts across europe) and in reality delivers comparatively small CO2 benefit. (the previously http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf report)

This has never been cost justified - there is a recent letter (reference by one of the wind groups on facebook) from the DCENR which when under AIE was asked for the cost justification for wind responded "we are working on it"

SeanW · 14-10-2015 12:52AM

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m thinking more of the vast, man-made, agricultural landscape than one-off houses.
Just to clarify – you’re linking to an article to argue that, sometimes, wind produces too much energy?

Which is nicer to look at, a field with a few cows in it, or a mountaintop that's been carpet-bombed with ugly bird chomping, bat killing monstrosities 3 times the size of the Dublin Spire?

As for the article - I think I've mentioned this before - Germany destabilises not only its own grid, but the grids of its Eastern neighbors by dumping unplanned and unusable surplusses on them. The whole idea of Germany co-operating with its neighbors, as the Captain suggested, is a little bit bizarre and cannot be taken seriously. If France is able to profitably use what the Polish and Czechs literally consider to be a threat to national security, they must have some advantage the Poles and Czechs do not. Like that hydroelectricity he keeps rabbiting on about.

It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that Kiribati is one of the poorest countries in the world, while Denmark is one of the wealthiest?

No. It has to do with the fact that Kiribati is a tiny island chain stretching for hundreds of miles on small little islands each with only a few hundred or thousand people on them. On some islands they're probably using glorified diesel generators. Fuel must be shipped in small amounts over very long distances to a disparate array of very small settlements. This is not efficient and we do not expect Kiribatian energy prices to be reasonable. Neither do we expect it for other places like Niue, the Solomon Islands and other places in the Top 10 for expensive electricity, places so small and remote most people would never have heard of them.

None of this should apply anywhere in Europe though, with larger, centralised markets, pipelines and other things, it should be a lot cheaper. But it's not, and when it's more expensive to buy a kwh of power in Kiribati than Denmark, it makes sense to ask why this should be so. There is of course, only one reason - Green policy.

djpbarry wrote: »

Dude, you’re the one in denial. You’ve already linked to those graphs. Look at the graph in that second link: 0.02 cents per kWh per KW per capita. That’s tiny.

Are we reading the same graph? It adds up, the graph clearly demonstrates a link between installed renewables and power costs. France, Finland, Hungary the US etc have little renewables so its costs are low (All between 10 and 20 cents a kwh). Denmark and Germany have lots of renewables so its costs are extremely high (Around 30 cents a kwh).

Wind does nothing to reduce Ireland’s dependency on imported power? Well, that’s just simply not true, is it?

If, as I content, the use of windmills limits the selection of other fuel types to gas and oil (because coal and nuclear are not flexible enough) then windmills not only fail to reduce dependency on imported fossil fuels, but they aggravate them severely by limiting other options including domestic supplies of coal, peat and uranium.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The backup plant already exists so ZERO capital cost.

What happens when the existing backup plant becomes life expired? What happens when the current generation of backup plant is gone but people need lots of juice and there's no wind? Your own bizarre post actually confirms my worst fears:

Not surprisingly, given these figures, no new fossil‑fuel power station has been built to provide back‑up for wind farms, and none is in prospect.

Emphasis mine.
So because the electricity markets have been so fouled up by renewables and green policy, there are no plans to replace life-expired fossil fuel gas plants (which are required because wind is not reliable). You couldn't make this stuff up.

Again, to reiterate. Say we continue down the current course of massively subsidising these Green monstrosities, and as the existing power plants age, there is nothing to replace them. Then you have an Xmas 2010 scenario where lots of people lose their central heating and throw on everything electric to stay alive, but there's no wind or sun. Assume also that there are electric cars in this glorious future of yours, and because it's Christmas Eve, everyone that isn't huddling under a blanket to stay alive is using their electric cars to go somewhere.

Seems like we would have a spot of difficulty ...

Capt'n Midnight · 14-10-2015 12:53AM

Markcheese wrote: »

Yes the back up plant already exists - so zero additional capital for our backup -
It's not all paid for though - and even when it is paid there'll still be significant maintenance/upgrade costs,plus return on investment (and profit) all to be returned from far lower electrical production -

We get more energy from renewables than from the 2 million tonnes of coal burnt annually in Moneypoint.

In Ireland very roughly minimum demand on summer nights is 2GW. Add 1GW for day, add 1GW for winter, add both for winter days. Add another 2GW as we've roughly 6GW installed capacity. Gas is expensive so it's only used when needed and so, shock and horror, most gas plant spends most of it's time idle or idling at low power.

Now are you seriously suggesting that the extra O&M on gas plant which is already used on demand outweighs the fuel cost of Moneypoint ?

BTW check how much of our gas plant was installed or upgraded since we've been using wind. It's not like the fossil fuel operators were blindsided by renewables.

fclauson · 14-10-2015 01:13AM

Money point conversion arguments

Markcheese · 14-10-2015 12:47PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We get more energy from renewables than from the 2 million tonnes of coal burnt annually in Moneypoint.

In Ireland very roughly minimum demand on summer nights is 2GW. Add 1GW for day, add 1GW for winter, add both for winter days. Add another 2GW as we've roughly 6GW installed capacity. Gas is expensive so it's only used when needed and so, shock and horror, most gas plant spends most of it's time idle or idling at low power.

Now are you seriously suggesting that the extra O&M on gas plant which is already used on demand outweighs the fuel cost of Moneypoint ?

BTW check how much of our gas plant was installed or upgraded since we've been using wind. It's not like the fossil fuel operators were blindsided by renewables.

I don't doubt any of that, but was saying that the existing thermal stations are not zero cost - everything costs -

Markcheese · 14-10-2015 12:52PM

fclauson wrote: »

Money point conversion arguments

Great - and ??
If it's a good idea hopefully ESB will invest in it -
Doesn't affect the wind industry / or justification much though -
On a side note- if bio-mass is half as energy dense as coal - could a converted moneypoint produce the same amount of power as it does from coal -

fclauson · 14-10-2015 02:02PM

Markcheese wrote: »

Great - and ??
If it's a good idea hopefully ESB will invest in it -

its not on their road map

Doesn't affect the wind industry / or justification much though

yes it does because in one move you reach or come near to 2020 targets

On a side note- if bio-mass is half as energy dense as coal - could a converted moneypoint produce the same amount of power as it does from coal -

You have to burn twice as much but burns quicker than coal - so when correctly converted it will produce a similar amount

djpbarry · 14-10-2015 02:12PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

You obviously didn't bother reading the link. The SEAI are trying to justify wind energy on the same basis as yourself by pushing a certain "study" on the matter. The link I posted outlines many of the major flaws in that study and in turn your analysis.

Perhaps you could make specific reference to an aspect of my “analysis” you deem flawed, together with a specific explanation of why you deem it so?

djpbarry · 14-10-2015 02:14PM

fclauson wrote: »

You argument that wind can deliver at around €34 does not stand up when you have to factor in back up plant

also these figures did not include grid interconnects/pylons etc

You’re the one who produced the estimated total cost of €4 billion. You’re now saying there are additional costs? Fine, let’s see them, but as has already been pointed out, the argument that “back-up” represents an additional cost is daft.

fclauson wrote: »

Back up plant is not zero costs

Much of the Irish plant is undergoing a regeneration/replacement program - and this fair its been doing sterling work for years. That is a cost.

But it’s not an additional cost – those plants would have to be maintained/replaced with or without wind.

fclauson wrote: »

We can pay for the replacement of existing plant but we know have to in addition pay for the deployment of wind and its infrastructure.

You're now saying that the additional cost of wind is the cost of wind?

Eh...

fclauson wrote: »

And we are paying for that at a rate of €80/Mw while non wind plant gets market rate. That model is unjust, and skewed towards a car crash of expensive electricity for the consumer (we have seen the consumer price charts across europe) and in reality delivers comparatively small CO2 benefit. (the previously http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf report)

Small compared to what?

djpbarry · 14-10-2015 02:17PM

SeanW wrote: »

Which is nicer to look at, a field with a few cows in it, or a mountaintop that's been carpet-bombed with ugly bird chomping, bat killing monstrosities 3 times the size of the Dublin Spire?

Nobody could accuse you of lacking objectivity, could they?

SeanW wrote: »

As for the article - I think I've mentioned this before - Germany destabilises not only its own grid, but the grids of its Eastern neighbors by dumping unplanned and unusable surplusses on them. The whole idea of Germany co-operating with its neighbors, as the Captain suggested, is a little bit bizarre and cannot be taken seriously. If France is able to profitably use what the Polish and Czechs literally consider to be a threat to national security, they must have some advantage the Poles and Czechs do not.

France exports electricity: look at the brilliant nuclear power!

Germany exports electricity: bloody wind power destablisiing grids!!!

SeanW wrote: »

None of this should apply anywhere in Europe though, with larger, centralised markets, pipelines and other things, it should be a lot cheaper. But it's not, and when it's more expensive to buy a kwh of power in Kiribati than Denmark, it makes sense to ask why this should be so. There is of course, only one reason - Green policy.

It does make sense to ask the question, but there’s no point asking any questions if you’ve already decided you’ve got all the answers.

SeanW wrote: »

Are we reading the same graph? It adds up, the graph clearly demonstrates a link between installed renewables and power costs.

It demonstrates a link, but not a very solid one – Germany and Denmark are very clearly outliers.

Regardless, as I stated previously, an increased cost of 0.02 c/kWh per kW of wind capacity per capita is tiny and it’s totally at odds with the repeated claims that wind power is massively expensive.

SeanW wrote: »

So because the electricity markets have been so fouled up by renewables and green policy, there are no plans to replace life-expired fossil fuel gas plants (which are required because wind is not reliable). You couldn't make this stuff up.

Indeed, you could not. You’re arguing that renewables are massively expensive, while simultaneously arguing that they’re “fouling up” electricity markets by providing power at extremely low wholesale cost, underming investor confidence in conventional thermal generation.

SeanW wrote: »

Say we continue down the current course of massively subsidising these Green monstrosities…

I’m sure you’re only too aware that subsidies are being phased out – that’s the whole point.

bk · 14-10-2015 02:50PM

Actually when you look at what the ESB are doing it is quite shocking.

The amount of coal and peat burned over the last 4 years as stayed steady, while the amount of Natural Gas used has been reduced significantly (55% in 2011 down to 48% in 2013)!

In other words the ESB continues to burn dirty but cheap coal and peat, in favour of much cleaner, but slightly more expensive natural gas!!!!

All the while we pay extra to subsidise unreliable wind!!

We could close all the remaining dirty oil and peat powered stations by simply increasing gas back to the 2011 levels without the need of building any new gas plants.

And then we could switch moneypoint to Biomass, doubling are usage of renewals almost overnight, easily reaching our 2020 goal of 40% renewables and potentially creating many local jobs supplying biomass to the plant right here in Ireland (increased forestry, growing willow on bogs, etc.).

bk · 14-10-2015 04:18PM

Actually I had missed this article, which says Bord Na Mona plans to do exactly the above by 2030, going 100% Biomass in it plants using willow grown on their land and other sources:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bord-na-mna-going-green-with-peat-harvesting-to-end-by-2030-31585603.html

That is great to hear, but 2030 is far too late, should be done by 2020.

That then just leaves the ESB's money spinner and apply named Moneypoint.

fclauson · 15-10-2015 08:38AM

bk wrote: »

Actually when you look at what the ESB are doing it is quite shocking.

The amount of coal and peat burned over the last 4 years as stayed steady, while the amount of Natural Gas used has been reduced significantly (55% in 2011 down to 48% in 2013)!

In other words the ESB continues to burn dirty but cheap coal and peat, in favour of much cleaner, but slightly more expensive natural gas!!!!

All the while we pay extra to subsidise unreliable wind!!

We could close all the remaining dirty oil and peat powered stations by simply increasing gas back to the 2011 levels without the need of building any new gas plants.

And then we could switch moneypoint to Biomass, doubling are usage of renewals almost overnight, easily reaching our 2020 goal of 40% renewables and potentially creating many local jobs supplying biomass to the plant right here in Ireland (increased forestry, growing willow on bogs, etc.).

Read my post http://joewheatley.net/how-much-co2-does-wind-power-save/

Gas is the flexible resource which can be brought on quickly but coal/peat due to ramp time is the main-stay

what he observed is that wind displaces the least polluting generators and leaves the worst on the grid (which goes to show a previous argument I had around wind not being as beneficial as many believed)

djpbarry · 15-10-2015 09:56AM

bk wrote: »

All the while we pay extra to subsidise unreliable wind!!

Subsidies/levies are not just for wind.

bk · 15-10-2015 11:05AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Subsidies/levies are not just for wind.

Yes, a lot of the subsidies go to peat, which given how dirty and non-renewable it is, is simply madness!

Wind farms - ugly truths

Comments