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

Chinese pay toxic price for a green world

135

Comments

  • #102
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    I don't understand why people get excited about subsidies to the renewable energy industry when the fossil fuel industry enjoys so many more - it makes no sense.

    two wrongs dont make a right

    Just because someone (like me) doesnt agree with wind subsidies doesn't automatically mean i agree with subsidies of coal, turf etc
    In fact I am against any form of subsidies of anything be it houses or windmills or turf or electric vehicles or nuclear or sugar, it is not the job of the state to pick winners in various industries with money they dont have.


  • #103
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »

    http://www.windpower.org/download/541/DanishWindPower_Export_and_Cost.pdf

    It may be worth noting that this report is from http://www.windpower.org/en/about_us.html -

    "DWIA's members consists of wind turbine manufacturers, energy companies and the wide range of companies that provide components, services and consultancy.

    DWIA manages the interests of the members and create the framework for the various fora, in which members can utilise the potential in knowledge sharing and exchange expiriences with players within and outside the industry.

    Furthermore DWIA promotes member interests on both the national and international political stage."

    This does not mean the report should be ignored, but rather that it should be read in context.


  • #104
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    In Finland they are planning for 100,000 storage. However, in the US the goalpost has moved to a million years.

    Nuclear waste is a result of purely political decisions not scientific or engineering constraints.
    Most of the waste can be reused and recycled in breeder reactors or rendered alot less dangerous with shorter lifespans via processing. And then there's thorium which was already mentioned.

    edit: speaking of waste disposal


  • #105
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    An outdated but most recent report on the issue:

    http://www.comharsdc.ie/_files/SubsidiesandEmissionsfromFossilFuel_researchJan05.pdf

    Globally, the IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies are in the region of $550 billion per annum.

    But to answer your question, they are far more generous:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html

    I don't understand why people get excited about subsidies to the renewable energy industry when the fossil fuel industry enjoys so many more - it makes no sense.

    I think ei.sdraob makes a most valid point in post 102.

    Regarding the subsidy figures, these need putting into context:

    "Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008."

    So fossil fuels received a subsidy 10 times larger than that for renewables.
    But are fossil fuels supplying 10 times more energy than renewables?

    The renewables subsidies apply mainly to electricity generation.
    Renewables supply only a small percentage of total electricity generation, for ease, are we OK to go for 10%?

    The fossil fuel subsidies apply to electriciy generation, heating fuel and transport fuel; these very roughly equate to a third each of our energy usage.

    No, fossil fuels are supplying 30 times more energy than renewables i.e. the fossil fuel subsidies are a third less than those for renewables or the converse is that renewables receive three times the subsidies of fossil fuels.

    Macha wrote: »
    And even if renewables did receive more market supports than fossil fuels, what about the myriad of externalities and serious questions over valuations and costings in our economic model? Why are we so sure that we have got it right (especially considering recent global economic events). What is the true cost of a tree? Is it the market value of the wood? Or is it the opportunity cost of avoiding damaging floods? In a recent TEEB study, the Amazon's role in preventing the siltation in hydro-power reservoirs could be worth as much as $600m per year. It's contribution to the lives of its inhabitants through shelter, food, clothing and general livelihood is estimated at €1 billion. There are a whole host of values that are not captured in today's standard economic methods.

    Sorry went on a bit of a rant!


    Don't apologise for the rant, I agree, sometimes value is hard to quantify. But from the research I have encountered, I am alarmed at the focus on wind generated electricity as a means of reducing CO2 emissions. And when did 'reducing CO2 emissions' morph into 'building renewables'?


  • #106
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    so i got interested in the subject now and started looking around

    http://www.posiva.fi/files/375/Onkalo_ENG_290306_kevyt.pdf

    Scandinavian countries are always held as an example and admired by Left leaning and Green posters (usually one follows the other) in all sorts of threads there, if they can do it why cant we? Ireland is very geologically stable, hell for that matter if an advanced economy like Japan with severe earthquakes and no natural carbon resources can run a nuclear industry why cant we?. We call ourselves "smart" but in reality the country is rather backwards and conservative.

    There is nothing "smart" about importing turbines made in China and plonking them all over the place.

    anyways
    Finland has two nuclear power plants, each with two
    reactor units. The power plants are at Olkiluoto in
    Eurajoki, on the Finnish west coast, and at
    Hästholmen in Loviisa, on the Finnish south coast.
    The combined output of the two reactors at
    Teollisuuden Voima Oy’s power plant at Olkiluoto is
    1,680 MW and that of the two reactors at Fortum
    Power and Heat Oy’s power plant in Loviisa is 976 MW.
    Finland made a decision in principle in 2002 to build
    a fifth reactor unit. The new reactor unit (OL3) being
    built at Olkiluoto will have an output of 1600 MW.

    ....

    Under the Nuclear Energy Act, funds for nuclear
    waste management are collected in advance in the
    price of nuclear electricity and paid into the State
    Nuclear Waste Management Fund. In 2005, the
    Fund stood at some EUR 1400 million, which will
    also be used to cover the cost of decommissioning
    of the plants.
    Under the Government’s decision in principle,
    the spent nuclear fuel generated by Finland’s existing
    nuclear power plant units and the new unit (OL3)
    can be finally disposed of at Olkiluoto. A maximum
    of some 6,500 tonnes of uranium will have
    accumulated for disposal at Olkiluoto.

    The cost of disposal is factored into the lifetime costs of the plants,
    the eirgrid report linked earlier uses an example of 2GW of nuclear in one of their scenarios with the costs taken from the experience of nuclear in Finland which includes disposal.
    If you dont take the cost of disposal into account the nuclear would be much cheaper, but of course you have to...


  • #107
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    yes you have, you have already decided its false..
    Decided what’s false? The correlation between wind generation in Denmark and electricity exports is traced back to this report, which states...
    54 charts, such as January 2003, have been drawn between January 2000 and June 2004. Note the almost mirror reflection which occurs in many of these charts. These demonstrate that there is a clear relationship between wincarpet output and net power flows. When wind power enters the Danish system, there is usually a net flow from Denmark to Germany, Sweden and Norway. Some might say, in effect, that wind power is being “exported”.
    Now, I don’t know about you, but that’s not exactly what I would call a rigorous analysis.
    robtri wrote: »
    taht paper is set out to try to prove th CEPOS report is incorrect. After a quick review of it, it is making assumption ( possibly just as badly as CEPOS) to make it points .... like the assumption that all exports of electricity are from small to med size power stations...
    Where does it say that exactly?


  • #108
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,530 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The cost of disposal is factored into the lifetime costs of the plants,
    the eirgrid report linked earlier uses an example of 2GW of nuclear in one of their scenarios with the costs taken from the experience of nuclear in Finland which includes disposal.
    If you dont take the cost of disposal into account the nuclear would be much cheaper, but of course you have to...
    I think you may have missed my point about moving goal posts. What was acceptible in the 1950's is not today. What is acceptable in Finland is not acceptable in the US. Nuclear regulations have over time become more stringent and more costly.

    even 100,000 years is a very long time. Most of the countries that have nuclear waste dumps have had ice ages in that time frame. Glaciers can move mountains , the weight of several Km of ice can cause earthquakes.

    yes it is possible to burn up a lot of the waste , BUT it's not economic at present.



    same applies to all technologies, really , health and safety costs can increase in the future, look at asbestos as an example of how a cheap material with some very attractive properties turned into a despised toxin


  • #109
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I think ei.sdraob makes a most valid point in post 102.
    I don't agree because I don't have an ideological opposition to subsidies if they bring us closer to where we, as a society, want to be. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with subsidies unless that value judgement is based on an absolute belief in the magic of free markets. I don't have that belief and I think every economist should be taught the Nash equilibrium.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Regarding the subsidy figures, these need putting into context:

    "Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008."

    So fossil fuels received a subsidy 10 times larger than that for renewables.
    But are fossil fuels supplying 10 times more energy than renewables?

    The renewables subsidies apply mainly to electricity generation.
    Renewables supply only a small percentage of total electricity generation, for ease, are we OK to go for 10%?

    The fossil fuel subsidies apply to electriciy generation, heating fuel and transport fuel; these very roughly equate to a third each of our energy usage.

    No, fossil fuels are supplying 30 times more energy than renewables i.e. the fossil fuel subsidies are a third less than those for renewables or the converse is that renewables receive three times the subsidies of fossil fuels.
    Fossil fuels are a mature industry. Are we going to add up historically how much subsidies fossil fuels have received since the 1800s?

    In your posts, you are very clearly making a set of very simplistic assumptions and calculations to suit your position but I'm afraid they don't show the full picture.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Don't apologise for the rant, I agree, sometimes value is hard to quantify. But from the research I have encountered, I am alarmed at the focus on wind generated electricity as a means of reducing CO2 emissions. And when did 'reducing CO2 emissions' morph into 'building renewables'?
    I personally am alarmed at the lack of alarm that most sections of our society display when faced with the realities of the fossil fuel industry and Ireland's position within the fossil fuel market.

    Re: renewables and CO2 emissions, decarbonising the energy sector is one of the key goals in reduction any economy's ghg emissions.


  • #110
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    even 100,000 years is a very long time. Most of the countries that have nuclear waste dumps have had ice ages in that time frame. Glaciers can move mountains , the weight of several Km of ice can cause earthquakes.

    You think that if a country is covered under 2 km of ice then buried nuclear waste be the least of some future siblings worries?

    As I said the technology and science already exists to reduce most of the waste to very small amounts of short lived elements. The decision not to reprocess or burn the waste in breeder reactors is a political one. Maybe this will change with time.

    Anyways while we continue to argue than nuclear is not an option the rest of the world is going ahead and building more of them, and we continue to burn coal which is slightly radioactive.


  • #111
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Now, I don’t know about you, but that’s not exactly what I would call a rigorous analysis.

    The input is pretty impressive:

    "The work has been a collaborative effort between the original stakeholders who were, Dansk Fjenrvarmeværkers Forening (DFF), Norsk Hydro Energy, Norsk Hydro Electrolysers, Naturgas MidtNord, Ringkøbing Fjernvarmværk (RFV), IRD A/S, Dr Klaus Illum and Incoteco (Denmark) ApS. Incoteco’s Hugh Sharman has been responsible for the project coordination and editing of the report and is grateful to the writers who have written up the most specialised sections.
    It is important to mention that other companies and institutions, although not originally nor officially partners in the project, have shown great interest and contributed with their valuable time, ideas, advice and experience. These are, ELTRA, ELSAM, Wärtsila OY, H2 LOGIC ApS, Markedskraft, Vindenergi Danmark, Danmarks Vindmølleforening, Dansk Gasteknisk Center a/s, AGA-Linde, Hollensen Energi and Ringkøbing Amt.
    The project was conducted in five main stages. At the end of the first four stages, the stakeholders and guests gathered to meet each other and to present their findings and/or insights. The project diary is as follows:
    1. Preparation, mid-March to mid-April
    2. “Kick-off” (stakeholders’ meeting at DFF, Kolding, 14 April, 2004)
    3. Mid-point stakeholders’ meeting at Ringkøbing Amt, 25 May, 2004
    4. Concluding stakeholders’ meeting at DFF, Kolding, 1st July, 2004
    5. Final Analysis, Report preparation, review of drafts, agreement and report submission, mid August.
    Special thanks are due to DFF’s Viktor Jensen and Kurt Risager, whose help, guidance, hard work and hospitality, has made the report possible. Thanks must also go to the personnel at Norsk Hydro in Oslo and Notodden, whose deep knowledge of hydrogen technologies and unstinting support with time and money under-writes the credibility of the conclusions and recommendations for action.
    The work was supported and sponsored by
    Energistyrelsen (Danish Energy Authority),
    Amaliegade 44,
    1256 Copenhagen K
    www.ens.dk"


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    In your posts, you are very clearly making a set of very simplistic assumptions and calculations to suit your position but I'm afraid they don't show the full picture.
    And could the same not be said of this statement?
    Macha wrote:
    "I don't understand why people get excited about subsidies to the renewable energy industry when the fossil fuel industry enjoys so many more"

    Macha wrote: »
    Re: renewables and CO2 emissions, decarbonising the energy sector is one of the key goals in reduction any economy's ghg emissions.
    And some people demonstrate a simplistic acceptance that building renewables will reduce CO2 emissions.

    Macha wrote: »
    Fossil fuels are a mature industry.
    And so are windmills; they were then replaced by waterwheels because the supply could be controlled by use of a sluice gate to meet demand; and then later by fossil fuels.

    In Germany and Denmark, windpower is a mature industry; we would do well to heed their lessons.


  • #113
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    And could the same not be said of this statement?
    I have shown that per annum, the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables. Your simplistic calculations in a previous post have not refuted this in any way and indeed ignore basic concepts like the impact that subsidies have on energy demand.


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    And some people demonstrate a simplistic acceptance that building renewables will reduce CO2 emissions.
    When all embodied energy, including from construction phase, is taken into consideration, renewables are far less carbon intensive than fossil fuels. The IEA, an agency that cannot be considered environmental by any stretch of the imagination has argued that removing decarbonising electricity generation must be one of the key pillars of the global energy strategy in the guture.

    But renewables are not just about carbon emissions - they are also about reducing Ireland's €6 billion fossil fuel bill, creating jobs in Ireland, improving our energy security, reducing our reliance on finite fuel sources and reducing our exposure to volatile fuel markets. Here's another idea - how much of the $6 billion that we spend ends up in extremist madrasas in Pakistan via Saudi Arabia? What impact does that have on global security?

    Edit: Onshore wind could be considered a more mature market in Germany and Denmark but again you're missing the subtleties and distinctions between things like onshore and offshore wind.

    Edit: Some carbon intensity figures from IEMA (in gCo2e/kwh):

    Coal 755-1050 (depending on scrubbing)
    Oil and Diesel 650-778
    Gas 385-500

    Biomass 14-93 (From fertilizer production, harvesting, drying and transportation)
    Solar PV 32-58 (From extraction of silicon at high temperatures required for PV modules (accounting for 60% of total energy requirement))
    Hydroelectric 10-30 (From construction of dams)
    Onshore wind 4.64-10
    Offshore wind 5.25-9
    Both types of wind Co2 is from the manufacturing and construction phases, arising from production of steel for the tower, concrete for foundations, and epoxy/fibreglass for rotor blades (accounting for 98% of total life cyclecarbon dioxide emissions)


  • #114
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The decision not to reprocess or burn the waste in breeder reactors is a political one.
    If breeder reactors were viable (at present), China would be rolling them out like there was no tomorrow.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Anyways while we continue to argue than nuclear is not an option...
    Who said nuclear wasn’t an option? Your arguments might carry a little more weight if you spent a little more time reading what people actually post and a little less time dismissing everyone as “Green Lefties”.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The input is pretty impressive:
    The content isn’t.


  • #115
    Ghost Estate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Ghost Estate


    robtri wrote: »
    just being looking around on this point, most gas turnine electrical generators dont use permanent magnets, they use field coils instead of magnets in the generators

    lots of generators don't use permanent magnets.

    there is no reason you couldn't build a wind turbine without one. in fact they do exist. there are also motors that can be used in electric cars that don't have permanent magnets in them.


  • #116
    Ghost Estate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Ghost Estate


    Macha wrote: »
    Biomass 14-93 (From fertilizer production, harvesting, drying and transportation)
    Solar PV 32-58 (From extraction of silicon at high temperatures required for PV modules (accounting for 60% of total energy requirement))
    Hydroelectric 10-30 (From construction of dams)
    Onshore wind 4.64-10
    Offshore wind 5.25-9
    Both types of wind Co2 is from the manufacturing and construction phases, arising from production of steel for the tower, concrete for foundations, and epoxy/fibreglass for rotor blades (accounting for 98% of total life cyclecarbon dioxide emissions)

    a lot of those figures will come down further once renewable power generation is more common
    djpbarry wrote: »
    If breeder reactors were viable (at present), China would be rolling them out like there was no tomorrow.
    Who said nuclear wasn’t an option?

    same is probably true for methane hydrate extraction. if it was that easy everyone would be having a go


  • #117
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Ghost Estate wrote: »
    a lot of those figures will come down further once renewable power generation is more common
    Possibly...there are other factors that could bring down carbon intensity eg using carbon neutral concrete, reusing waste aggregate etc. We really are a very inefficient species.

    On the price side, a significant investment in R&D is forecast to have a positive impact on costs. The Carbon Trust estimates accelerated R&D could reduce capex spending by €14 billion in the UK based on a weighted average learning rate of 15%.


  • #118
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,530 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Macha wrote: »
    Possibly...there are other factors that could bring down carbon intensity eg using carbon neutral concrete, reusing waste aggregate etc. We really are a very inefficient species.
    Cooling for servers is comparable to air transport.

    we can easily build electronics to work at high temperatures http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/article-display/107095/articles/military-aerospace-electronics/volume-12/issue-7/features/special-report/plastic-ics-get-hot-in-high-temp-market.html
    They shifted temperature guidelines from the full-military temperature range of -55 to 125 degrees Celsius to the industrial temperature range of -40 to 85 degrees C.
    So yes we can build stuff that will run with an ambient temperature 30 degrees hotter than current stuff, with a corresponding saving in cooling, a lot of places still don't use the heat from the server room to save on heating costs.


  • #119
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    I have shown that per annum, the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables. Your simplistic calculations in a previous post have not refuted this in any way
    To claim that "the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables." and to describe as 'simplistic', any attempt to pro rata the subsidies against energy produced, is nothing short of perverse.

    As you mention 'subtleties and distinctions', you may find this interesting
    http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/

    And do the EIA figures you provide take account of running back up generators for intermittant generators?
    And do the EIA figures you provide take account of the new transmission lines to transport renewable electricity from remote locations to centres of demand?
    Do you have a link to the report containing these figures?

    And isn't there a certain irony that in the case of Denmark, where electricity is exported sometimes at the curtailment of hydro, that one renewable displaces another renewable? Or worse still, if as djpbarry suggests, it is not wind but fossil fuel generated electricity that is exported, that fossil fuel curtails hydro?


  • #120
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    To claim that "the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables." and to describe as 'simplistic', any attempt to pro rata the subsidies against energy produced, is nothing short of perverse.
    No, what is perverse is quite obviously attempting to make the figures fit into your position.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    As you mention 'subtleties and distinctions', you may find this interesting
    http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/
    Wow, a free market energy blog not agreeing with renewable subsidies. Whatever next?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    And do the EIA figures you provide take account of running back up generators for intermittant generators?
    And do the EIA figures you provide take account of the new transmission lines to transport renewable electricity from remote locations to centres of demand?
    Do you have a link to the report containing these figures?
    It is IEMA not the IEA and they come from various sources. You can obtain a full list of references by emailing editor@iema.net. The report is only available online to IEMA members but I can email it to you if you wish to see it.

    The IEMA figures are, as I wrote in the post, for g/CO2e/kwh per energy. The running of back up generators such as CCGT that can be quickly ramped up and down would be factored into the overall emissions of an economy and would be attributed to that fuel type not renewables. Any energy generated by the back up plants would obviously be exported to the grid to help meet demand with the end result that fossil fuels are still being displaced by renewables.

    None of the figures include grid issues, including the fossil fuel figures.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    And isn't there a certain irony that in the case of Denmark, where electricity is exported sometimes at the curtailment of hydro, that one renewable displaces another renewable? Or worse still, if as djpbarry suggests, it is not wind but fossil fuel generated electricity that is exported, that fossil fuel curtails hydro?
    No, it's called balancing the grid. What you need to look at is overall carbon intensity over a wider time scale, not picking out particular moments in the process and complaining about them. It entirely misses the point.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,622 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Cooling for servers is comparable to air transport.

    we can easily build electronics to work at high temperatures http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/article-display/107095/articles/military-aerospace-electronics/volume-12/issue-7/features/special-report/plastic-ics-get-hot-in-high-temp-market.htmlSo yes we can build stuff that will run with an ambient temperature 30 degrees hotter than current stuff, with a corresponding saving in cooling, a lot of places still don't use the heat from the server room to save on heating costs.

    With cloud computing server farms can be placed in cooler places, I can only see this trend increasing exponentially, it doesn't make sense to manage a server onsite for most applications (even home users) if you can virtually manage it and rent instead of buying.

    The reason we don't have nuclear is the Irish way, we are conservative and pious but not actually knowledgeable or eco conscious.


  • #122
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Ok lets do a simple exercise using Eirgrid's figures
    Firstly lifetime costs of each tech

    sxn4.png

    Secondly if you take the halfhourly generation figures from eirgrid for 2010, you would get 299MW average generation from an average installed capacity of 1500MW :rolleyes:, thats ~20% availability over the year at any time

    so to generate an extra 1 Terrawatt hour continuously one would need:

    * 80euro * 1,000,000 * (10/9) = 88 million if chose nuclear, 90% availability is the norm with previous gen reactors

    * 75 euro * 1,000,000 * (5/1) = 375 million if chosen onshore wind, yes almost 5x thanks to a measly 20% availability of onshore wind


    Eirgrid predict an extra 10 TWh of demand between now and 2030, so yeah which option will be cheaper



    please note:

    * That the above uses the average over a year for all the windmills scattered all over the country already,
    if you go with wind some months and weeks you could generate **** all energy,
    the average for december was 10%, that means either importing the energy in that time (not cheap and so much for energy independence) or using gas (back to fossil fuels) or freezing :P
    You could store this energy in a Spirit of Ireland type storage at a capital cost of €1,200/kW (source Eirgrid) adding further costs

    * If you go with nuclear you know exactly how much you can generate and you know all the costs, and yes the above figure from Eirgrid is based on Finlands experience and includes waste disposal

    * Going nuclear would not required billions to be spend on new power lines saving even more money


  • #123
    Ghost Estate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Ghost Estate


    ei.sdraob wrote: »

    so to generate an extra 1 Terrawatt hour continuously one would need:

    * 80euro * 1,000,000 * (10/9) = 88 million if chose nuclear, 90% availability is the norm with previous gen reactors

    * 75 euro * 1,000,000 * (5/1) = 375 million if chosen onshore wind, yes almost 5x thanks to a measly 20% availability of onshore wind

    Nuclear fuel isn't getting any cheaper and since we don't have any worth mentioning in this country you'd be utterly at the mercy of a couple of foreign suppliers.

    With 90% availability you might as well also build a spare 1TW power station beside it because any modern high-flying Dublin based socialites left here would have a fit if they were without power for 10% of the time.

    They'd be "omg loike I'm SOO leaving this backward old dump and moving to London so I can shop at Waitrose" "oh my god I couldn't even charge my brand new iPhone 5G and I was off Facebook for TWENTY WHOLE MINUTES I though't i'd doi!! deffo. Now where did I put that pint of p1ss I paid 10 euro for? I cant see it in the dark"


  • #124
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    so to generate an extra 1 Terrawatt hour continuously one would need:

    * 80euro * 1,000,000 * (10/9) = 88 million if chose nuclear, 90% availability is the norm with previous gen reactors

    * 75 euro * 1,000,000 * (5/1) = 375 million if chosen onshore wind, yes almost 5x thanks to a measly 20% availability of onshore wind
    The figure in question refers to lifetime generation costs, not capacity costs – I can’t imagine that variability in wind output has not already been taken into consideration.


  • #125
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    I found another report from UKs Parsons Brinckerhoff only few months old, very interesting document and has detailed cost breakdowns


    Full details of the 2010 Powering the Nation update can be downloaded here (PDF, 258Kb).
    The following illustrations are also available:
    Range of costs - all technologies (PDF, 67Kb).
    Cost breakdowns - all technologies (PDF, 66Kb).

    2nrhmk4.png


    More variables not accounted for in case of Ireland:

    * wind will require massive investment in the grid building pylons to the back arse of nowhere for new farms. 2.1 billion eirgrid will have to spend in next 3 years alone, nuclear on the other hand can be located at existing high voltage lines/ plants like moneypoint

    * we only have so many good onshore wind locations, the lowest hanging fruit already have windfarms on them, which take up alot of land


    @Ghost Estate the fuel is less than 10% of the cost of running a nuclear plant as shown in above report and the fuel is readily available from such rogue states such as Canada and Australia
    oh and 90% availability is a bit higher than 20% over the last year (10% last month) :rolleyes: no? that's dismal availability! there was me thinking 30% or more but no the generation data for the year is all there.


  • #126
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    More variables not accounted for in case of Ireland:

    * wind will require massive investment in the grid building pylons to the back arse of nowhere for new farms. 2.1 billion eirgrid will have to spend in next 3 years alone...
    What’s your source for that figure?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    @Ghost Estate the fuel is less than 10% of the cost of running a nuclear plant as shown in above report and the fuel is readily available from such rogue states such as Canada and Australia...
    Most of the world’s uranium mining takes place outside of Australia, Canada and the US. The French, for example, get a sizeable chunk of their uranium from Niger.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    djpbarry wrote: »
    What’s your source for that figure?
    .

    I provided reference to the eirgrid document already in this thread
    Grid25 estimated that about €4bn was required, in addition to the almost €1bn current
    capital programme, out to 2025 to achieve the objectives of meeting the government’s
    renewable targets    , facilitating balanced regional development and maintaining security of
    supply.

    EirGrid has examined the phasing for delivering of Grid25 with a view to identifying the
    network capex required in the 2011-15 revenue control period. This exercise identified the
    Network Needs of €2b in 2011-15. The network development underpinning the €2b is
    consistent with the assumptions behind the offers to generators connecting to the system
    under Gate 3.

    Primetime programme on wind months ago or so had much higher figures... but the above is straight from the horses mouth




    djpbarry wrote: »
    What’s your source for that figure?
    Most of the world’s uranium mining takes place outside of Australia, Canada and the US. The French, for example, get a sizeable chunk of their uranium from Niger.

    400px-2007Uranium.PNG

    Thats just for Uranium, I mentioned Thorium several times in any threads on nuclear.


  • #128
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    No, what is perverse is quite obviously attempting to make the figures fit into your position.
    I'm sorry but your statement is like saying that 'one pizza has more topping than the other' and omits to state that the pizza with more topping has more topping because its ten times bigger than the other one and feeds ten times as many people. Oh and it also omits to say that the smaller pizza has at least double the depth of topping.
    Sticking by your statement does nothing to promote your credibility and indicates that sensible discussion and sharing of information shouldn't be expected.
    Macha wrote: »
    Wow, a free market energy blog not agreeing with renewable subsidies. Whatever next?
    Actually the article at this link:http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/ looks at 'CO2 emissions and wind electricity production'.
    And is the IEMA any more of a credible source?
    "IEMA is now the leading international membership-based organisation dedicated to the promotion of sustainable development"
    Macha wrote: »
    No, it's called balancing the grid. What you need to look at is overall carbon intensity over a wider time scale, not picking out particular moments in the process and complaining about them. It entirely misses the point.
    So, can you show how Germany or Denmark have reduced their CO2 emissions as a result of their wind generators?


  • #129
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The figure in question refers to lifetime generation costs, not capacity costs – I can’t imagine that variability in wind output has not already been taken into consideration.
    On the chart on page 3 at this link: http://www.pbworld.co.uk/media.php?file=1148 (as already supplied by ei.sdraob), what's the meaning of the statement "NOTE: all plant assumed to run at base load, unless otherwise noted".

    Look at the cost of peak duty (5%) OCGT (Gas-oil):
    "The two sets of data for open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) reflect two alternative duties for this type of plant. The conventional duty of mid-merit to peak is represented by the gas fired OCGT with a typical load factor of 20%. The peak duty (5%) for OCGT may be increasingly required to manage transient conditions when there are fast declines in wind generation as weather patterns cross the country. In this case the plant would need to be oil-fired as gas supplies would be unlikely to be delivered quickly enough through the gas network."

    I can't give much more time to this board at the moment so happy postings folks.


  • #130
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I'm sorry but your statement is like saying that 'one pizza has more topping than the other' and omits to state that the pizza with more topping has more topping because its ten times bigger than the other one and feeds ten times as many people. Oh and it also omits to say that the smaller pizza has at least double the depth of topping.
    Sticking by your statement does nothing to promote your credibility and indicates that sensible discussion and sharing of information shouldn't be expected.
    I'm not worried about my credibility <mod note> and as you were complaining about earlier, attack the post not the poster please. </mod note>

    The facts remain that you want a narrow, targeted analysis of subsidies to suit your position. As I mentioned already, there is the issue of demand caused by subsidies not to mention the fact that the entire history of subsidies and other factors would have to be considered for a proper analysis. If you want to go ahead, be my guest.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Actually the article at this link:http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/ looks at 'CO2 emissions and wind electricity production'.
    And is the IEMA any more of a credible source?
    "IEMA is now the leading international membership-based organisation dedicated to the promotion of sustainable development"
    Yes the IEMA is a more credible source. You can check IEA figures if you so wish.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    So, can you show how Germany or Denmark have reduced their CO2 emissions as a result of their wind generators?
    I don't need to bother with Germany or Denmark, I can demonstrate it for Ireland. In SEAI's latest report on renewables in Ireland it is stated:
    • CO2 avoided through renewable energy use increased by 257% (7.3% per annum on average) over the period 1990 to 2008 reaching 2,830 kt CO2 in 2008.

    • Wind energy use gave rise to the largest avoidance of emissions in 2008 (46%) followed by solid biomass and hydro

    http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf


  • #131
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    we have 148 wind farms in Ireland....
    http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/windmap
    generating 1771MW of electricity

    this is approx. 2231 wind turbines in the country (my numbers)

    I would like to see a study to see the overall enviromental impact of the all these turbines, from the mining to the building to the transport to the installation, foundations ect...
    compared to say gas fired units for eg.. money point 915MW gas fired units....

    be an interesting study i would say


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    we have 148 wind farms in Ireland....
    http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/windmap
    generating 1771MW of electricity

    this is approx. 2231 wind turbines in the country (my numbers)

    I would like to see a study to see the overall enviromental impact of the all these turbines, from the mining to the building to the transport to the installation, foundations ect...
    compared to say gas fired units for eg.. money point 915MW gas fired units....

    be an interesting study i would say
    I have already given total carbon emission figures for the various fuel types. If you'd like to find others, please go ahead.

    The environmental impact statements for each site should also be available.


  • #133
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    I have already given total carbon emission figures for the various fuel types. If you'd like to find others, please go ahead.

    The environmental impact statements for each site should also be available.

    the carbon figures you gave arent what I am after...
    enviromental impact statments for each site arent what I am after...
    they dont address the issues at hand in any way


  • #134
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    @robtri

    The average installed wind for 2010 was 1500MW with 299MW being generated on average at any point of time during the year, which is a terrible joke since the other 80% of the time had to rely on fossil fuel :rolleyes:

    I posted link earlier to the Eirgrids document with overall lifetime cost for each technology but excluding subsidies and other factors such as exported pollution (this thread) and of course the cost of adding new grid connections

    Wind is neither cheap nor reliable and the document linked by Macha above has some very ambitious targets such as 500MW of wave energy which is very expensive (3.3x more than nuclear) and would require further money spent in the grid and is heavily subsidise (20c+ per kW guaranteed under REFIT), the figures for offshore wind are fairly bad too

    Macha wrote: »
    I have already given total carbon emission figures for the various fuel types. If you'd like to find others, please go ahead.

    Please show us where the damage cause by rare earth mining and processing (thread subject) is accounted for :confused: especially in the case China who are the main produce (95%) and are heavy coal users and have not signed up to any targets.


  • #135
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    the carbon figures you gave arent what I am after...
    enviromental impact statments for each site arent what I am after...
    they dont address the issues at hand in any way
    Well please let us know what you are looking for.

    Are you equally investigative of such comprehensive impact assessments of fossil fuel plants?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Please show us where the damage cause by rare earth mining and processing (thread subject) is accounted for :confused: especially in the case China who are the main produce (95%) and are heavy coal users and have not signed up to any targets.
    China's emissions have little relevance for the rare earth mining & processing. These factors would have been taken into consideration for the emissions stats I gave above.

    There is little point in me gathering such information if there is nothing to compare it to. So would you show us the damage caused through the entire life cycle of Ireland's fossil fuel plants? It seems to be at about the same level of research expected of me.


  • #136
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    Well please elucidate us.

    Are you equally investigative of such comprehensive impact assessments of fossil fuel plants?


    .



    that isnt that what i said
    I would like to see a study to see the overall enviromental impact of the all these turbines, from the mining to the building to the transport to the installation, foundations ect...
    compared to say gas fired units for eg.. money point 915MW gas fired units....

    be an interesting study i would say

    Yes I would like a fair comparison for fossil fule .. like gas against wind turbines for the same amount of capacity.. looking at manufacturing impacts to install impacts

    I dont have an answer, thats why i am saying i would like to see one!!


  • #137
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Sorry, too much multi tasking going on.

    I think the difficulties in analysis arise as technologies are often compared on single aspects, eg carbon emissions. So to avoid comparing apples & oranges, the analysis would have to compare each technology under a number of headings.

    I'm not familiar with any studies as comprehensive as you seem to be looking for but will do a bit of a search.

    Edit: Is this the sort of thing you're looking for, albeit not comparing technologies as such:

    http://www.rpi.edu/cfes/news-and-events/Wind%20Workshop/An%20Environmental%20Life%20Cycle%20Analysis%20of%20Wind%20Power.pdf


  • #138
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »

    I don't need to bother with Germany or Denmark, I can demonstrate it for Ireland. In SEAI's latest report on renewables in Ireland it is stated:
    • CO2 avoided through renewable energy use increased by 257% (7.3% per annum on average) over the period 1990 to 2008 reaching 2,830 kt CO2 in 2008.
    • Wind energy use gave rise to the largest avoidance of emissions in 2008 (46%) followed by solid biomass and hydro

    http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf

    Here’s what I found on the first person check I did on the SEAI: http://www.seai.ie/About_Us/SEAI_Structure/
    “Low Carbon Technologies :Katrina Polaski & Eoin Sweeney”

    And here at the IWEA's Annual Conference 2010, the trade lobby group for the Irish wind industry: http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm?page=viewnews&id=59
    she’s presenting on “Social Acceptance of Wind Energy" "Katrina Polaski Head of Low Carbon Technologies”
    http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/iwec_10?twfId=383&download=true
    There are some great piccys at this link and on page 25 it says
    “No national anti-wind group active in Ireland –yet?”


  • #139
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    The statistics from the publication I linked to were independently calculated by the EPSSU or Energy Policy Statistical Support Unit that is outsourced by SEAI.

    If you find an error in the calculations or methodology, please let me know - and them, I'm sure they would be happy to make the necessary amendments.


  • #140
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    http://www.rpi.edu/cfes/news-and-events/Wind%20Workshop/An%20Environmental%20Life%20Cycle%20Analysis%20of%20Wind%20Power.pdf

    On page 19 it states "May need to consider “big picture” if also adding backup power to grid"

    Do you have a detailed breakdown on this?


    Perhaps you can help here also please, you write 'CO2 avoided through renewable energy use reached 2,830 kt CO2 in 2008'.
    What was the figure in 2009 and in 2010?
    And what were the respective total emissions (electricity, heating and transport) for these three years?


  • #141
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink, it was a random link I posted in response to robtri's request for a comprehensive lifecycle analysis.

    The question of whether I would have further details of something that is alluded to in passing within this article is absurd.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    Chloe Pink, it was a random link I posted in response to robtri's request for a comprehensive lifecycle analysis.

    The question of whether I would have further details of something that is alluded to in passing within this article is absurd.

    There's a similar reference in the SEAI report:http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2010_Update/RE_in_Ire_2010update.pdf
    Appendix 1 page 38
    "The limitations and caveats associated with this methodology include that it ignores any plant used to meet the associated reserve requirements of renewables. These open cycle plants will typically have lower efficiency and generate increased CO2 and NOx emissions compared with CCGT and these emissions should be incorporated into the analysis. The purpose of presenting a simplified analysis here is to provide initial insights into the amount of fossil fuels that are displaced by renewables and the amount of emissions thereby avoided."


  • #143
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    All decent methodologies are required to include references to their limitations. The idea that in science any methodology doesn't have a limitation is unheard of.

    In relation to this specific limitation, the emissions would still count in the national inventory although I agree that they should be factored into this analysis or at least be presented in tandem with the existing figures.

    This doesn't remove the fact that the installation of renewables displaces fossil fuels and in turn reduces our national emissions. And it doesn't take away from the other drivers for renewables, namely energy security, fuel mix, volatile fuel markets etc etc.

    Edit: For a closer analysis, I would recommend comparing the Table B.1 or expanded energy balance of various years. Here is a link to 2008:

    http://coe.epa.ie/ghg/nirs/NIR_2010_IEv1.2.pdf


  • #144
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    This doesn't remove the fact that the installation of renewables displaces fossil fuels and in turn reduces our national emissions. And it doesn't take away from the other drivers for renewables, namely energy security, fuel mix, volatile fuel markets etc etc."

    Yes but by what degree and at at what cost?

    And regarding security of supply and CO2 emissions:
    The “Tyndall Centre Technical Report 30, July 2005 Conclusion 5, Security of decarbonised electricity systems” refers to the back up plants needed for wind turbines:
    "We observed that wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the same as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant will still be required.
    However, these conventional plants will be required to run either occasionally and/or at part load when shortages of supply are likely to occur due to a low total wind power output. Considering that conventional plants at full load are the most efficient and generate the lowest amount of CO2 emission (per electricity produced) such occasionally and/or part-loaded plants will be less utilised and/or produce more CO2 per electricity produced."

    And OFGEM say:
    "But we do not think that either the existing scheme or the Government’s proposed changes are the best way to either promote renewable generation or to cut carbon dioxide emissions. We think that the current scheme costs customers more than it needs to and we do not think that the Government’s proposed changes are a good idea. We explain why in this response and also develop our thinking on alternative support mechanisms that we think could meet the Government’s renewable and carbon emissions targets at lower costs to electricity customers."

    And that the National Audit Office reports that:
    "1. Onshore wind is very significantly over subsidised.
    2. The Renewables Obligation is a very expensive way to save CO2."

    See bottom of page 8 at this link:
    http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/renewables-obligation-paper.pdf

    And much more...


  • #145
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Yes but by what degree and at at what cost?
    There is no cheap solution. The IEA has clearly stated the reality of peak oil and the pure volatility of fuel markets has its economic costs. It isn't that the era of fossil fuels is over, the era of cheap fossil fuels is over. Or rather that the era of cheap energy is over.

    The links you use seem to only see back up capacity as the only way to integrate renewables into a grid. In reality there are a number of other options including storage, including distributed storage, increases in dispatchable renewables and greater grid connectivity.


  • #146
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,530 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    maninasia wrote: »
    With cloud computing server farms can be placed in cooler places, I can only see this trend increasing exponentially, it doesn't make sense to manage a server onsite for most applications (even home users) if you can virtually manage it and rent instead of buying.
    most server equipment will run at 40 degrees, does it ever get that hot here ?

    Also an einstein refrigatoris powered by heat, is it Hitachi who are using the waseheat from servers to pre cool the incoming air ?
    The reason we don't have nuclear is the Irish way, we are conservative and pious but not actually knowledgeable or eco conscious.
    our electricity market is the size of Birmingham

    No foreign entrants to the market after deregulation

    So no one would be tempted to invest here , and nuclear is a huge investment. we would need one spare station, for planned outages. 50% of reactors in the US have had UN-planned outages of over one year. (ie. not planned when designed)

    Nuclear makes no sense here, we can import it from the UK , let them take most of the risk, let them pay the subsidy (if they can't do it economically there when they can develope all the technoliogy in house and get preferrential treatment from the US then we in brown envelope land, with a history of political cronies grabbing land before it's zoned, haven't a prayer)


    Nuclear power can be safe, clean and economic. But not all three together. Also the UK are far better enforcing health and safety than we are.


  • #147
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,530 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * wind will require massive investment in the grid building pylons to the back arse of nowhere for new farms. 2.1 billion eirgrid will have to spend in next 3 years alone, nuclear on the other hand can be located at existing high voltage lines/ plants like moneypoint

    * we only have so many good onshore wind locations, the lowest hanging fruit already have windfarms on them, which take up alot of land
    Nuclear power plants will also have to be built in the arse end of nowhere :rolleyes:


    wind farms don't take up land. you can still graze animals on them , what do they prevent happening on low value land at the top of hills ? It's not like anyone is going to build houses or grow crops up there and Coilte IIRC aren't allowed to grow tress above 500m

    Arklow bank only has a fraction of the intended wind farm on it. 25MW out of 520MW.


  • #148
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    wind farms don't take up land. you can still graze animals on them , what do they prevent happening on low value land at the top of hills ?

    Public access and recreation
    And how many turbines are needed to get the same amount of electrcicty per year as one could get from a nuclear generator?


  • #149
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Public access and recreation
    And how many turbines are needed to get the same amount of electrcicty per year as one could get from a nuclear generator?
    They are normally built on private land anyway, which is not open for public access or recreation.


  • #150
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    There is no cheap solution. The IEA has clearly stated the reality of peak oil and the pure volatility of fuel markets has its economic costs. It isn't that the era of fossil fuels is over, the era of cheap fossil fuels is over. Or rather that the era of cheap energy is over.
    Well OFGEM and the National Audit Office say there are cheaper ways of reducing CO2 emissions; perhaps you'd like to let them know otherwise.
    And what about shale gas and nuclear?
    Macha wrote: »
    The links you use seem to only see back up capacity as the only way to integrate renewables into a grid. In reality there are a number of other options including storage, including distributed storage, increases in dispatchable renewables and greater grid connectivity.
    What storage mechanisms are you referring to here? Which valleys would we flood for hydro?
    Wind isn't despatchable.
    And as low and high pressure systems effect much of Europe at the same time, it's unlikely that our neighbours would want our wind.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    They are normally built on private land anyway, which is not open for public access or recreation.
    So is public access and recreation effected by wind turbines? I thought we could hug them.

    And how many turbines are needed to get the same amount of electricity per year as one could get from a nuclear generator?
    Lets say they're 2MW turbines and the nuclear generator has a capacity of 1600MW


Advertisement