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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Wind-pumped hydro electric storage

124»

Comments

  • #152
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    I have just come across the below Organic Power web brochure from late last year that outlines comprehensively their plans for Glinsk Mayo, with photomontages. The document is well worth a read.


  • #153
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Just came across this where Lord Turner (chairman of the UK government's Committee on Climate Change) says umong other things:

    "But as for onshore wind, it actually is not all that much more expensive than nuclear or coal or gas once you allow for a reasonable cost of carbon."
    I've not read the article (I don't have time just now), but that comment does not make a whole lot of sense to me. Onshore wind is dirt cheap.


  • #154
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I've not read the article (I don't have time just now), but that comment does not make a whole lot of sense to me. Onshore wind is dirt cheap.

    It may make more sense to you in the context of the backround of the article. Nonetheless when you say "Onshore wind is dirt cheap" dont you mean heavily subsidised onshore wind is dirt cheap?

    Btw where did you get that from?


  • #155
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    6,000MWhr/day

    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
    windpower and ocean power, transforming these unpredictable energy sources into reliable power available on demand.

    We can predict wind pretty well so this statement is just plain false.
    The €680,000,000 project is competitive at €700/kW.

    Someone needs to check their numbers again.
    It is an established technology worldwide, with hundreds of schemes such as Turlough Hill in Wicklow, in successful and safe operation.

    Virtually all of which were built because of nuclear plants which made them financially viable.
    clean but unpredictable energy from planned local windfarms and ocean energy projects

    Another facepalm statement.
    It can accept one third of the projected surplus night time wind power that will be produced in Ireland when the nationaltarget of 6,000MW of wind turbines is achieved by 2020.

    The amount of wind curtailment will be less than 2%.
    Input electricity will be preferentially sourced from grid connected wind and wave energy projects.

    You can't "preferentially source" electricity.


    The whole document fails to address what I would see as two rather salient points.

    1. What is the point of it?

    2. How is it going to make money?


    Also what's these people and completely unrealistic timeframes. 2016? It takes 8 years or so to build an interconnector alone.


  • #156
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Not sure I understand yr point , why would we curtail wind generation and from what level .... I assume there's a practical max of wind power that you'd want on our (current) grid , 30 /40% ?? So if we're building usual wind production capacity( ie not the max rating) above the 30/40% that eirgrid want then there could be quite a bit to export .... And since us going flat out would still be a relative drop in the ocean to the uk ... As would most of their wind resouce in comparison to their heavy demand their grid would be able to handle it . Presume most of the wind energy will be forward sold ? Rather than spot markets ...? Does such a thing exist or was that just enron land ... Will the interconnector operator be the buyer/ seller price maker....

    You need a certain level of synchronous generation on the grid to maintain its stability. I've explained it before in another thread
    Firstly - In a power system the instantaneous power generated must equal the instantaneous power consumed. This raises a problem because wind is a variable (not intermittent, anyone that uses that word to describe it deserves a slap) resource. You cant dispatch it and when its blowing its blowing and if there isn't enough blowing you have to get the energy somewhere.

    Secondly - Any imbalance between generation and demand causes the frequency to either rise or fall as well as affecting voltage levels. If the frequency drops by around 2.5 Hz its likely you will get system collapse as all the large power transformers, transmission lines, etc will move beyond their rating. All generators will start tripping out as well as otherwise they would get damaged by the torsional affect of slowing down to far/fast.

    The inertial energy stored in the large rotating synchronous generators help smooth out small changes in the generation - demand balance as well as slowing the rate of fall in frequency in case of a large disturbance. If the frequency drops these synchronous machines slow down along with the grid frequency. Because they have slowed down some of their inertial energy is lost, theres only one place for this energy to go and its into the grid. This helps meet the imbalance between generation and demand until the governors of the generating stations increase their power output to bring the system back into equilibrium.

    Wind power does not have this inertial response (or at least anywhere near the same kind, there are some fancy ways you can add a simulated effect) so any sudden large imbalance will cause the frequency to drop at a very fast rate causing the system to collapse.

    For this reason we currently limit the instantaneous wind penetration to around 50% of the demand because we need a certain level of synchronous generation on the grid to provide the inertia needed to maintain the stability.

    Note I've mostly talked about an imbalance where there is more demand than generation causing the frequency to drop. The opposite can happen but it is less common.


    If you want to know more this would be a good place to start.

    http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Facilit...tudyReport.pdf

    The current limit is around 50% (which we came close to hitting two nights ago), by 2020 the necessary grid upgrades will be there to let us get to around 70-75% instantaneous penetration. If wind goes above this it has to be curtailed but that won't happen very often.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Also what's these people and completely unrealistic timeframes. 2016? It takes 8 years or so to build an interconnector alone.
    Most of that time is spent on route planning and planning permission and financing. Hasn't some approval been given for the private interconnectors ?

    actual construction is a lot faster when there is the will to do it.

    This recently announced one will be operational in 2015.
    Glasgow to Liverpool 2 GW with ~3% losses

    That should also answer a lot of questions re the feasibility of exporting power from here to England. The low losses show that hooking up to the existing 29GW of Norwegian hydro would be far cheaper and quicker than building pumped storage here. If the Scottish and English proposals go through then there will be 2.6 GW of interconnectors to Norway in the next 8 years, in addition to the indirect connections.

    https://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/2012/energy/power-transmission/ept201202029.htm
    The total power loss in the link, caused by the two conversions – from AC to DC and back to AC – as well as by the ohmic resistance of the cables will be less than 3 percent.

    The consortium comprising Siemens and Prysmian is responsible for turnkey supply of the link. This includes coordination and logistics efforts for cable installation along the 420-km-long route and HVDC converters in Hunterston, Scotland and the Wirral area in North West England.

    ept201202029e-01_072dpi.jpg

    compare 2000MW to our system demand
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/



    Also this is in the pipeline - not sure of details, but some of the leg work has been done so it could be speeded up if there was the will & demand for it
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Interconnector#East_West_Cable_One_Ltd._project



    Oh yeah statoil are proposing floating wind turbines
    http://www.pressherald.com/news/interest-of-wind-farm-company-runs-deep_2012-06-15.html The Hywind design is known as a spar, basically a floating vertical tube with ballast at the bottom.


  • #158
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    You need a certain level of synchronous generation on the grid to maintain its stability. I've explained it before in another thread
    It may be time to consider a DC grid for wind power

    A DC grid could be stabilised for short times with capacitors or batteries

    or get one of those giant rotary converter things with lots of inertia that the Japanese use to transfer power between 50Hz and 60Hz

    or link into the UK grid to spread the risk both ways


  • #159
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Most of that time is spent on route planning and planning permission and financing. Hasn't some approval been given for the private interconnectors ?

    actual construction is a lot faster when there is the will to do it.

    I know, hence why they are using an underwater HVDC link rather than going overground with an AC line. They've been trying to build a new interconnector to re-enforce the weak link between the north and the south for years. Its a bit of a mad decision from a cost and reliability point of view though but the best engineering solution isn't always the most politically/socially palatable.


    We wouldn't be able to link a HVDC link that big into our network for 2 reasons.

    1. A CSC HVDC link requires a short circuit ratio of around 2.5 to 1. Our grid isn't large enough to provide this.

    2. If it ever tripped out or had a fault our network would instantly collapse.

    I think if we get another HVDC connector it will be most likely be a 500 MW link to France.
    It may be time to consider a DC grid for wind power

    A DC grid could be stabilised for short times with capacitors or batteries

    or get one of those giant rotary converter things with lots of inertia that the Japanese use to transfer power between 50Hz and 60Hz

    or link into the UK grid to spread the risk both ways

    The technology isn't quite there yet for a true meshed DC grid yet (I'd say its just a matter of time, money and research (some of which I'll be doing) though). There's also the issue of doing all this whilst not making electricity prices multiples of what they currently are.

    We're to far from the UK to link the networks together with AC lines, I think the max length of an underwater AC link is only 60 km or so, and even then we'd probably experience lots of inter-regional frequency oscillations and torsional effects because we would'nt be strongly coupled if we did manage it.

    The issue of providing inertia in AC grids with high penetrations of asynchronous generation is one of the largest barriers that we are heading towards that will have to be overcome. Ireland is very much going to be the test bed network for solving the problems because we are going to run into them far before anyone else will. We could possibly stick loads of synchronous condensers and rotary converters fed by HVDC links into the grid but it comes back again to the cost. Not an easy problem and no easy solutions.


  • #160
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Nonetheless when you say "Onshore wind is dirt cheap" dont you mean heavily subsidised onshore wind is dirt cheap?
    Nope. I mean it is dirt cheap, as I stated earlier in this thread, in response to one of your posts:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77122084&postcount=79


  • #161
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nope. I mean it is dirt cheap, as I stated earlier in this thread, in response to one of your posts:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77122084&postcount=79

    Would be interesting to see averaged lifetime costs per MWh produced for wind versus a non baseloaded plant. That'd be a bit more complicated than something you can do on the back of an envelope though and there would be lots of externalities that'd have to be accounted for. I'm sure someones given it a shot though. If I find anything I'll post it up.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nope. I mean it is dirt cheap, as I stated earlier in this thread, in response to one of your posts:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77122084&postcount=79

    Again I try to reiterate to you that those costs do no include things like asthetic damage to our landscape/loss of tourist revenue here and case in point with Organic Power purely to export power to the uk. I suppose an easy thing to dismiss from a London perspective.

    btw link dos'nt work. Perhaps you could update link.

    From Irish times recently "UK to plug into green Irish energy" makes for staggering reading:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0615/1224317957264.html

    the article quotes some some offshore costs:

    Codling has plans to build a 220-turbine wind farm close to the sand bank of the same name that sits off the Wicklow coast. As things stand, 220 turbines would generate over 400 MW of electricity at full capacity. A wind farm on that scale would cost around €800 million to build.

    Oriel’s is planning a large-scale wind farm off Dundalk Bay. Oriel plans to install 55 turbines with a capacity of 6MW each, a total of 330MW at full capacity. At that scale, the project has an estimated development cost of between €900 million and €1 billion

    and the coup de gras

    MAINSTREAM RENEWABLE POWER's “Energy Bridge” which is an ambitious plan to run a 5,000 mega watt (MW) electricity cable under the Irish Sea, 10 times the size of Eirgrid’s Meath-Wales interconnector. Mainstream recently confirmed that it has applied to the British authorities for a grid connection for the cable, and the company envisages using it to transmit electricity from onshore and offshore projects to Britain.

    And from The Independant last year "Why a warm wind from the UK could heat up our energy industry":

    The UK is looking to massively subsidise development of the sector here....
    Wind farms are expensive to install and they need to be connected into the electrical grid. In order to encourage investment, developments are subsidised via a public service obligation paid by electricity users. While wind is free, the use of wind energy in Ireland has had little impact to date on reducing costs to the end user.

    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/why-a-warm-wind-from-the-uk-could-heat-up-our-energy-industry-2805659.html

    dirt cheap, I think not, we over here are paying for it in more ways than one. ;)


  • #163
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Again I try to reiterate to you that those costs do no include things like asthetic damage to our landscape...
    You were talking about subsidies a moment ago, now we're on to aesthetics?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    btw link dos'nt work. Perhaps you could update link.
    http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farms/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_wind_farms
    Oldtree wrote: »
    the article quotes some some offshore costs...
    And now you've jumped from onshore to offshore and interconnectors.
    Oldtree wrote: »
    dirt cheap, I think not...
    You can think whatever you want, but despite the popular belief that onshore wind is extremely expensive, I have never seen anyone demonstrate that this is the case. The fact is that onshore wind is one of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) form of electricity generation there is.


  • #164
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The fact is that onshore wind is one of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) form of electricity generation there is.
    Hydro is the cheapest, most reliable etc.

    Low hanging fruit so Europe has already maxed out.

    Canada , India and China can develop lots more hydro, as will Africa.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Major_projects_under_construction

    40GW on the Congo for $80Bn http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7358542.stm


    But here onshore wind is the main game

    though I like the idea of floating offshore turbines

    wave power is handy but on shore power would use up very large (100Km) chunks of the coast. offshore is more expensive



    And regarding cost, the choices are

    renewable (costs are dropping, new technologies are in the pipeline)

    fossil fuel (fuel costs increasing, CO2 costs may also increase)

    reduce power usage drastically (this hasn't happened , perhaps population will peak at 11bn people and we'll start insulating houses instead of building new ones ?)

    nuclear (still no economic breeder or Thorium reactors yet. still no prospect of breaking even on ocean recovery of uranium, peak uranium would happen real soon if we move to nuclear)


  • #165
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    And regarding cost, the choices are

    renewable (costs are dropping, new technologies are in the pipeline)

    fossil fuel (fuel costs increasing, CO2 costs may also increase)


    In the short term in Ireland, the CER is looking to increase the PSO levy this October because the wholesale price of conventional electricity has fallen.
    The cost of generation from alternative sources has, as a result, become relatively more expensive.
    Regulator wants to increase the levy from around €90m to €148.5m.

    CONSULTATION DOCUMENT


  • #166
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Heroditas wrote: »
    In the short term in Ireland, the CER is looking to increase the PSO levy this October because the wholesale price of conventional electricity has fallen.
    The cost of generation from alternative sources has, as a result, become relatively more expensive.
    Regulator wants to increase the levy from around €90m to €148.5m.

    CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

    Best thing they could do for the PSO levy is stop subsidizing peat.


  • #167
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You were talking about subsidies a moment ago, now we're on to aesthetics?

    http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farms/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_wind_farms
    And now you've jumped from onshore to offshore and interconnectors.
    You can think whatever you want, but despite the popular belief that onshore wind is extremely expensive, I have never seen anyone demonstrate that this is the case. The fact is that onshore wind is one of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) form of electricity generation there is.

    All part of the costs convieniently ignored.
    Thank you for link, but would expect to cost is not definitive and SEI is there to attract business therefore there figures are questionable.
    Jumped to offshore as those were the latest figures i could find for you. and the interconnector appears to be integral to any development of wind farms here.
    Cheapest form of electric remains to be proved by you with actual independant figures that would include the arthetic cost to our landscape, etc.


  • #168
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,567 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    So the pso pays wind turbine owners If the price of electricity drops below a guaranteed level . Do/should the same turbine owners pay into the pso fund if the electricity price outstrips a certain level ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #169
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    All part of the costs convieniently ignored.
    The point is you’re shifting the goalposts and besides, “aesthetic cost”, apart from being extremely difficult to quantify, is applicable to pretty much any construction.
    Oldtree wrote: »
    Thank you for link, but would expect to cost is not definitive and SEI is there to attract business therefore there figures are questionable.
    So in other words you’re dismissing the figures because they don’t support your argument.

    I notice you don’t apply the same standards to the figures you pulled from newspaper articles?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    and the interconnector appears to be integral to any development of wind farms here.
    Any development? Wind farms cannot exist in the absence of interconnection?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    Cheapest form of electric remains to be proved by you with actual independant figures...
    Who decides what constitutes “independent”? You?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    ...that would include the arthetic cost to our landscape, etc.
    How would one go about quantifying that exactly?


  • #170
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Heroditas wrote: »
    Regulator wants to increase the levy from around €90m to €148.5m.

    CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
    Capacity 2005: Aughinish Alumina (160MW) and Tynagh (400MW)
    receive support under the PSO levy.
    ...
    Alternative Energy Requirement (AER) ... There is 316 MW of AER generation capacity supported
    in this PSO proposed decision.
    ...
    There is 1379 MW of REFIT renewable generation capacity
    included in this PSO proposed decision, which is an increase of 137MW
    compared with 2011-12 PSO
    If you look at 3.0 on page 13 you'll see that very roughly the money is split three ways Peat / Aughinish Alumina and Tynagh / Renewables


    so a little over 1/3rd of the PSO is for the 1,695MW of Renewables.


  • #171
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    If you look at 3.0 on page 13 you'll see that very roughly the money is split three ways Peat / Aughinish Alumina and Tynagh / Renewables


    so a little over 1/3rd of the PSO is for the 1,695MW of Renewables.



    I appreciate that.
    My point was that the CER have decided that in the short term, fossil fuel costs are dropping, thus making some forms of renewable generation less cost effective. As a result, an increase in the levy is needed.
    Long term yes, fossil fuel costs will probably continue to rise.

    The situation with the peat burning stations is ridiculous. They get subsidised to burn peat as part of the security of supply mandate, despite it being inefficient. Some of the stations are also burning bio-fuels as part of the mix but get no subsidy for this and are importing the bio-fuels. It's a ridiculous turn of affairs.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Markcheese wrote: »
    So the pso pays wind turbine owners If the price of electricity drops below a guaranteed level . Do/should the same turbine owners pay into the pso fund if the electricity price outstrips a certain level ...

    No that would be a contract for difference, as is being proposed in the UK. Wind turbine owners aren't paid when they're curtailed by the TSO.


  • #173
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Who decides what constitutes “independent”? You?

    How would one go about quantifying that exactly?

    Clearly YOU are the independant voice we are all looking for.

    And if you could apply yourself to it I'm sure you could help me to quantify lost revenue or other lost funds should we deface the lovely landscape that tourists come to see here in Mayo. I am unsure as to how to start to quantify this before it happens on a large scale, but I have no doubt the losses will happen.

    In the past people used to visit the rain foresta but that has declined due to the removal of said forests. Eco tourism is a increasingly booming industry and we have something fantastic for them to look at here, for the time being. A bog is a full habitat with a calling cry "the closer you look the more you see" and this applies to much of our unspoilt landscape, such as our EU protected limestone pavements, etc.


  • #174
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,567 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Oldtree wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Who decides what constitutes “independent”? You?

    How would one go about quantifying that exactly?

    Clearly YOU are the independant voice we are all looking for.

    And if you could apply yourself to it I'm sure you could help me to quantify lost revenue or other lost funds should we deface the lovely landscape that tourists come to see here in Mayo. I am unsure as to how to start to quantify this before it happens on a large scale, but I have no doubt the losses will happen.

    In the past people used to visit the rain foresta but that has declined due to the removal of said forests. Eco tourism is a increasingly booming industry and we have something fantastic for them to look at here, for the time being. A bog is a full habitat with a calling cry "the closer you look the more you see" and this applies to much of our unspoilt landscape, such as our EU protected limestone pavements, etc.

    Have you been to west cork / south Kerry loads of turbines , apparently a tourist or two as well...

    I live in a very scenic area , behind my house are two massive wind turbines, also 3 of the biggest gas turbines in the country are very close,( within 2 miles) plus their pylons ect... I'd prefer the wind turbines any day...
    But if we don't put wind turbines or power stations in anybodies backyards, and there are no lines of pylons anywhere.... There'll be no power for anyone...
    I wouldn't put turbines in national parks, possibly scenic areas like Achile island , but nothing looks better when you've climbed a mountain than a gently turning wind turbine in the distance....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #175
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Oldtree wrote: »
    In the past people used to visit the rain foresta but that has declined due to the removal of said forests. Eco tourism is a increasingly booming industry and we have something fantastic for them to look at here, for the time being. A bog is a full habitat with a calling cry "the closer you look the more you see" and this applies to much of our unspoilt landscape, such as our EU protected limestone pavements, etc.
    Most tourists aren't bothered by wind turbines.

    Maybe Tourism Ireland could do a survey to find out if eco-tourists would like prefer wind turbine or subsidising the harvesting of turf from the few remaining bogs ?


  • #176
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Have you been to west cork / south Kerry loads of turbines , apparently a tourist or two as well...

    I live in a very scenic area , behind my house are two massive wind turbines, also 3 of the biggest gas turbines in the country are very close,( within 2 miles) plus their pylons ect... I'd prefer the wind turbines any day...
    But if we don't put wind turbines or power stations in anybodies backyards, and there are no lines of pylons anywhere.... There'll be no power for anyone...
    I wouldn't put turbines in national parks, possibly scenic areas like Achile island , but nothing looks better when you've climbed a mountain than a gently turning wind turbine in the distance....

    You prefer pylons to tourists, why? That is a nice picture you paint of a single gentle turbine swishing in the distance, there are many people out there now who rue the day the turbines were allowed near their homes. We are not talking about a few turbines here we are talking the national target of 6,000MW of wind turbines to be achieved by 2020, with 2000MW proposed for Mayo by 2016 (to begin with). see the previous Organic Power web brocure posted above by me 15/6. I understand that 2,000 turbines are intended for Mayo.

    Organic Power wanted to put turbines, pumped hydro storage and necessary infastructure adjacent and in an sac in mayo but were thwarted in their efforts to kick start the process.

    http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=072110&la=1
    http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=081500&la=1
    http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=1074&la=1
    http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=10288&la=1
    http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?filenum=10663&la=1

    for a fuller discussion of that episode see here and why michael viney chose a wind farm over a gold mine (not much of a choice imo):

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055393679

    Dare I mention:

    http://www.antaisce.ie/naturalenvironment/NaturalEnvironment/News/tabid/183/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5/Call-for-Moratorium-on-Bog-Sites-Wind-Farm-Construction.aspx

    I have previously stated that I have no problem with turbines in the right place, and we have to give our landscape a value in the process of deciding where onshore turbine go.


  • #177
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Most tourists aren't bothered by wind turbines.
    Maybe Tourism Ireland could do a survey to find out if eco-tourists would like prefer wind turbine or subsidising the harvesting of turf from the few remaining bogs ?

    Are you sure that most tourists aren't bothered by wind turbines, possibly up to 2,000 of them? where did you get that nugget?

    I think its a silly point of view to offer a choice like that, we just have to be prudent, both in the way we approach the issue of turbine placement and preserving our few remnaining bogs. Perhaps a better survey would be no turbines or many turbines or a few turbines. Bogs is probably the wrong choice of camparison anyway given:

    http://www.antaisce.ie/naturalenvironment/NaturalEnvironment/News/tabid/183/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5/Call-for-Moratorium-on-Bog-Sites-Wind-Farm-Construction.aspx

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bog-slide-firm-gets-goahead-for-huge-windfarm-162283.html

    You may be interested in reading what local people are trying to do in Louisburgh, Mayo (a few miles from the aforementioned Organic Power planning applications) to attract visitors, from the times yesterday:

    http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0619/1224318196391.html

    A map showing exactly where Organic Power wanted to start (not their only attempted ingress to SAC's in ireland):

    209581.jpg

    A view of what is nearby for you to explore on google street view:

    http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.644638,-9.84375&spn=0.02605,16.45752&t=h&layer=c&cbll=53.656441,-9.86789&panoid=Dsv9-3aZWDQzbPUYMV5X8w&cbp=12,131.17,,0,-2.03&hnear=Dadreen,+County+Mayo&z=6

    and overhead satellite view of one of the most fanastic beaches in mayo, (not on stree view) where you can look back up from the beach to Meelwree mountains immediatly behind the beach.

    http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.652244,-9.877739&spn=0.016558,0.032144&hnear=Dadreen,+County+Mayo&t=h&z=15

    Pictures of Mweelrea Mountains:

    http://www.google.ie/search?q=mweelrea+mountains&hl=en&cr=countryIE&sa=X&tbs=ctr:countryIE&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=wLXhT6zbEsLLhAer1bnEAw&ved=0CGkQsAQ&biw=1130&bih=751

    You tell me? not worth preserving?


  • #178
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17827490
    In a survey commissioned by tourism agency VisitScotland, about 80% said a wind farm would not affect their decision about where to take a holiday.
    ...
    Nearly half of those questioned in the VisitScotland survey said they would be interested in visiting a wind farm if it had a centre included.

    http://www.bwea.com/media/news/tourism.html
    A face-to-face survey of more than 300 visitors to Argyll, commissioned jointly by the British Wind Energy Association and the Scottish Renewables Forum, found that 91% said the presence of wind farms in the area made no difference to whether they would return, dispelling the myth that wind farms and tourism cannot co-exist. About 1 in 5 had actually seen one of the three wind farms in Argyll and when asked what effect if any they had had on their impression of Argyll, 55% of these people said "generally or completely positive", 32% "ambivalent" and only 8% "negative".

    If you can find an objective survey that shows that tourists are put off by wind turbines please post it instead of scaremongering.


    And before you point out that x% of tourists are unhappy with wind turbines, that figure is lower than the number of tourists who complain about price, food ,service and other stuff that tourists routinely moan about.


  • #179
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17827490
    http://www.bwea.com/media/news/tourism.html
    If you can find an objective survey that shows that tourists are put off by wind turbines please post it instead of scaremongering.
    And before you point out that x% of tourists are unhappy with wind turbines, that figure is lower than the number of tourists who complain about price, food ,service and other stuff that tourists routinely moan about.

    Re the BBC one you forgot to point out that :

    Most of the 3,000 people questioned in the study neither agreed nor disagreed that wind farms spoil the look of the Scottish countryside.

    A similar number neither agreed nor disagreed that they would avoid an area of the countryside if there were a wind farm.

    So really "dont know" is the result of the survey. Do you think that the results would show something different if photmontages showing 2,000 turbines all over the place were produced at the time of questioning would change the results of such a survey?

    Re the BWEA, you are asking me to look for an objective survey???!? Look at the linguistics used in this bit of self promo:

    Nine out of ten tourists visiting some of Scotland's top beauty spots say the presence of wind farms makes no difference to the enjoyment of their holiday, and twice as many people would return to an area because of the presence of a wind farm than would stay away, according to a poll carried out by MORI Scotland.

    A face-to-face survey of more than 300 visitors to Argyll ...

    9 out of 10 tourists visiting implies all tourists visiting scotland..
    Such twaddle.....
    300 visitors...
    huge survey there then.

    You also forgot to mention this bit of the survey:

    Detailed interviews were carried out over two September weekends near some of Argyll's top beauty spots and, unsurprisingly, found that the scenery was by far the main attraction of the area

    and only 20% had actually experienced a wind farm.

    About 1 in 5 had actually seen one of the three wind farms in Argyll

    and even i am interested in visiting a wind farm.......

    once and for all firmly establishes

    more biased linguistics...

    I am suprised that you did not go for a Irish survey and take points from that that bolster your view. Below is such a survey by the SEI (2003) (very unbiased I know :rolleyes:)

    It may be possible to do more to exploit the positive tourist potential of wind farms in attracting the ever-larger numbers of environmentally concerned visitors to the locality.

    The public are not greatly concerned about the impact of medium scale wind farms upon scenic beauty, irrespective of the type of landscape.

    Chart 2.11 also indicates that almost 50% believe wind farms are a positive addition to the landscape and 39% agreed that they are controversial, revealing a considerable divergence of opinion on this issue.

    Responses to the more detailed statements listed in Chart 2.11 regarding wind farms suggest a lack of direct experience and knowledge of their economic or environmental impacts among many people. Almost one in two neither agree nor disagree that wind farms disturb the natural habitats of birds and animals. Opinions are also divided as to whether wind farms are an eyesore on the landscape: 28% agree, 30% disagree and 42% neither agree nor disagree.The same lack of a definite opinion is revealed in relation to the other issues explored: noise levels, local benefits and the reliability or otherwise of wind power as an energy source. The study therefore reveals considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of wind farms.

    http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Attitudes_towards_Wind_Energy_in_Ireland/

    What about this 2008 Irish Bord Failte survey also attached:

    tourists tended to prefer farms containing fewer turbines.
    it is important also to take into account the views of the one in seven tourists who are negatively disposed towards wind farms.
    The challenge lies in striking a balance between the maintenance of landscape character and scenery as a tourism asset, and facilitating the development of further wind farms to ensure Ireland meets its GHG reduction targets.
    It is the view of Fáilte Ireland that National Parks and areas of national scenic importance should be avoided for wind farm development.
    Of the wind farms viewed most contained less than ten turbines and 15% had less than five turbines.
    Only 14% of tourists thought that electricity pylons had a positive impact

    5.86m number of visitors in 2010

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1230/1224309632109.html

    So if we simply extrapolate 1 in 7 (ignoring but aware of the dont knows = undecided) of 5.86 million visitors gives us 837,142 visitors, a significant number of visitors I'm sure you'll agree (or maby not)!

    Aren't you keen on the use of the word scaremongering, twice in one day.


  • #180
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Clearly YOU are the independant voice we are all looking for.
    [MOD]Less of the smart-arse remarks please.[/MOD]

    You have linked to a bunch of newspaper articles to support your argument, apparently never questioning the independence of these sources.

    However, when I produce figures that go against your argument, you dismiss them as being from a source with a vested interest. That's a double-standard.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You have linked to a bunch of newspaper articles to support your argument, apparently never questioning the independence of these sources.
    However, when I produce figures that go against your argument, you dismiss them as being from a source with a vested interest. That's a double-standard.

    Perhaps i should have used the words you used which is what I was trying to imply vis "Who decides what constitutes “independent”? You?"

    and you are right should have got figs from official sources for you.

    http://www.failteireland.ie/Research-Insights/Survey-Report-Listing.aspx?view=all#searchtext=&

    Tourism Numbers and Revenue in 2011
    Visitors 2011 6,240,000
    Thier Spend 2011 €3,798,000,000
    So 1 in seven with a negative opinion is 891,428 with a revenue related to them of €542,571,428 put at risk.


  • #182
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/3_General_SurveysReports/2010_Main_Markets.pdf?ext=.pdf

    Failte Ireland. 2010 Survey, page 25.

    The only tourists who said they would definitely not be back were 1% of those from North American.

    And I'm guessing their reasons may be related to things other than wind turbines.


  • #183
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    7IHB4

    Todays peak single market price for leccy is 7c per unit because we are producing 1.25GW of wind

    Point is that the value of stored hydro varies and will be a victim of it's own success.


    Can anyone post the price per unit and capacity level these schemes need to break even. Please include transmission costs as appropriate.


  • #184
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    7IHB4

    Todays peak single market price for leccy is 7c per unit because we are producing 1.25GW of wind

    Point is that the value of stored hydro varies and will be a victim of it's own success.


    Can anyone post the price per unit and capacity level these schemes need to break even. Please include transmission costs as appropriate.

    I don't have figures or a source but I've been told that the peak system marginal price needs to be around ten times that of the minimum price. The advent of gas has pretty much demolished such large differentials as it is being used for both peak and baseload supply.

    Edit: This seems to be what you're looking for. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47187.pdf


  • #185
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/3_General_SurveysReports/2010_Main_Markets.pdf?ext=.pdf
    Failte Ireland. 2010 Survey, page 25.
    The only tourists who said they would definitely not be back were 1% of those from North American.
    And I'm guessing their reasons may be related to things other than wind turbines.

    The Failte survey I previously attached was much clearer about %'s of visitors:

    What our visitors think:

    The survey results indicate that although most visitors are broadly positive towards the idea of building more wind farms on the island of Ireland, there exists a sizeable minority (one in seven) who are negative towards wind farms in any context.

    So thats 14% at the very least and no guessing.


  • #186
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Oldtree wrote: »
    The Failte survey I previously attached was much clearer about %'s of visitors:

    What our visitors think:

    The survey results indicate that although most visitors are broadly positive towards the idea of building more wind farms on the island of Ireland, there exists a sizeable minority (one in seven) who are negative towards wind farms in any context.

    So thats 14% at the very least and no guessing.

    This is a completely specious argument. You could arbitrarily pick any piece of infrastructure and get similar results in a survey, be it new transmission lines, new thermal plants, waste treatment plants, motorways etc.

    And secondly the survey states that 14% of tourist view them in a negative light, not that they would refuse to come here on the basis of the level of installed wind turbines in the country. The percentage of tourists that would actually refuse to come here on that basis is probably so small to be negligible.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    And secondly the survey states that 14% of tourist view them in a negative light, not that they would refuse to come here on the basis of the level of installed wind turbines in the country. The percentage of tourists that would actually refuse to come here on that basis is probably so small to be negligible.
    I don't think there are many countries left in the EU that don't have at least some wind turbines installed. Maybe Malta, considering their insane population density..


  • #188
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Macha wrote: »
    I don't think there are many countries left in the EU that don't have at least some wind turbines installed. Maybe Malta, considering their insane population density..
    They are commiting to 10% renewables by 2020

    Floating wind farms ?
    http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Swedish-company-proposes-floating-wind-farms-for-Malta-20120216

    Interconnector , Malta to Sicily
    http://www.mepa.org.mt/news-details?id=789


  • #189
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    This is a completely specious argument. You could arbitrarily pick any piece of infrastructure and get similar results in a survey, be it new transmission lines, new thermal plants, waste treatment plants, motorways etc.

    And secondly the survey states that 14% of tourist view them in a negative light, not that they would refuse to come here on the basis of the level of installed wind turbines in the country. The percentage of tourists that would actually refuse to come here on that basis is probably so small to be negligible.

    I have to admit that I am without the benefit of any survey having asked any number of tourists (after said tourists have been shown a photomontage, or actual experience of, an industrial sized large wind farm in a previously picturesque landscape) specifically “will you come back to visit an area with 2,000 turbines in the landscape?”

    It is Organic Powers intention to concentrate 2,000MW of turbines by 2016 (one third of Irelands’ proposed 6,000MW of turbines by 2020) in the relatively small area of North Mayo. Planning applications at the moment in Mayo seem to be using 1MW to 2.3MW turbines, so that’s between 869 and 2,000 turbines.

    Do you really think that this proposal to concentrate such an amount of turbines in North Mayo is appropriate (even though it is a good place to site turbines given the wind speeds there)?

    If you drive into Castlebar from the south on your left hand side you will see a wind farm, maby 10 or so turbines. This is imo the correct positioning of turbines in the landscape, close to a town that would use the power generated and where the town is visible in the landscape making the turbines seem innocuous and appropriate, even beautiful.

    You may be interested in this newspaper article, from yesterday, which is a project for 400 turbines in the midlands to be used to export power generated to the UK. 40,000 jobs for us here in big factories and €2.5 billion for Mr O’Connor et al (although I am unsure how 400 turbines can produce the “5,000MW booked” by this project, 12.5MW turbines??):

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/new-oconnor-plan-may-lead-to-40000-jobs-3147524.html

    I also really hope that this new gold rush does not turn into another Corrib pipeline oil fiasco where we give away another of our resources for free.


  • #190
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Oldtree wrote: »
    I have to admit that I am without the benefit of any survey having asked any number of tourists (after said tourists have been shown a photomontage, or actual experience of, an industrial sized large wind farm in a previously picturesque landscape) specifically “will you come back to visit an area with 2,000 turbines in the landscape?”

    It is Organic Powers intention to concentrate 2,000MW of turbines by 2016 (one third of Irelands’ proposed 6,000MW of turbines by 2020) in the relatively small area of North Mayo. Planning applications at the moment in Mayo seem to be using 1MW to 2.3MW turbines, so that’s between 869 and 2,000 turbines.

    Do you really think that this proposal to concentrate such an amount of turbines in North Mayo is appropriate (even though it is a good place to site turbines given the wind speeds there)?

    If you drive into Castlebar from the south on your left hand side you will see a wind farm, maby 10 or so turbines. This is imo the correct positioning of turbines in the landscape, close to a town that would use the power generated and where the town is visible in the landscape making the turbines seem innocuous and appropriate, even beautiful.

    You may be interested in this newspaper article, from yesterday, which is a project for 400 turbines in the midlands to be used to export power generated to the UK. 40,000 jobs for us here in big factories and €2.5 billion for Mr O’Connor et al (although I am unsure how 400 turbines can produce the “5,000MW booked” by this project, 12.5MW turbines??):

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/new-oconnor-plan-may-lead-to-40000-jobs-3147524.html

    I also really hope that this new gold rush does not turn into another Corrib pipeline oil fiasco where we give away another of our resources for free.

    Frankly just like the spirit of ireland crowd its a safe bet to ignore the organic power plan, there's no way it'll be built.


  • #191
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Oops, counted 27 turbines on the way in to Castlebar yday and it did not look intrusive at all, the way they had been spaced and sited umong the hills.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Interesting to note that the uk rejected a huge wind farm to protect a very small number of birds, never mind the landscape!!!. This would seem very ironic to me in the context of this thread, given that the main thrust of wind farm development here is to supply the uk market.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/06/wind-farm-scrapped-fear-birds?newsfeed=true


  • #193
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Interesting to note that the uk rejected a huge wind farm to protect a very small number of birds, never mind the landscape!!!. This would seem very ironic to me in the context of this thread, given that the main thrust of wind farm development here is to supply the uk market.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/06/wind-farm-scrapped-fear-birds?newsfeed=true

    That's not true in the slightest. We're a net importer from the UK and will be for the foreseeable future.


  • #194
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    I think you missed the point, I am not talking about the current situation there are plans afoot watson as previously posted:

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/new-oconnor-plan-may-lead-to-40000-jobs-3147524.html

    and need i mention Organic Powers plan for 2,000 turbines in north mayo to be linked specifically to the uk?


  • #195
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Bit more info here on some future turbine number plans:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0615/1224317957264.html

    and this makes for interesting reading:

    "Ireland can achieve deployment of 11GW - 16GW of onshore wind and 30GW of offshore wind by 2050"

    www.seai.ie/publications/seai_roadmaps/wind_energy_roadmap.pdf

    lots and lots of turbines


  • #196
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Oldtree wrote: »
    I think you missed the point, I am not talking about the current situation there are plans afoot watson as previously posted:

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/new-oconnor-plan-may-lead-to-40000-jobs-3147524.html

    and need i mention Organic Powers plan for 2,000 turbines in north mayo to be linked specifically to the uk?

    Nope, that statement is still wrong. Anyone who is building windfarms is building them with the aim of getting a return on their investment. The economics just aren't there to build explicitly for export. And I've rubbished that organic power plan before a couple of pages back.


  • #197
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,567 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    A specific windfarm in the uk got blocked because of a specific bird population.So
    I'm pretty sure windfarm projects here, have and will be dropped for various environmental reasons including risk to bird populations...
    Part of the process really ... What's the fuss?!

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #198
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Nope, that statement is still wrong. Anyone who is building windfarms is building them with the aim of getting a return on their investment. The economics just aren't there to build explicitly for export. And I've rubbished that organic power plan before a couple of pages back.

    Of course the idea is a return on investment, that goes without saying.

    The UK have serious commitments to using a serious amount of renewable power. There is no way that they are going to be able to build enough turbines, etc, to meet those requirements. Therefore (so called) imported renewable energy will attract a premium which is why the boys are getting busy here, I thought that was obvious.

    Apparently your economics or rubbishing of the boys plans isn't enough to stop them in their haste to meet this perceived future demand.


  • #199
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Of course the idea is a return on investment, that goes without saying.

    The UK have serious commitments to using a serious amount of renewable power. There is no way that they are going to be able to build enough turbines, etc, to meet those requirements. Therefore (so called) imported renewable energy will attract a premium which is why the boys are getting busy here, I thought that was obvious.

    Apparently your economics or rubbishing of the boys plans isn't enough to stop them in their haste to meet this perceived future demand.

    My counter argument to this claim. There may be some sharing of renewables targets between us and the UK. However this image some people get that we are going to become of Saudi Arabia of wind energy just doesn't stand up. If we constantly export 'wind' energy across both the interconnectors 24/7 365 days a year we would only help them meet an additional 7.3% of their renewable targets (and 2.2% of their overall demand). And that's if we could export a constant 1 GW and ignoring the need to hit our own targets. Hence why I ignore 'the boys'.


Advertisement