Wind power hopelessly uneconomic?

[GreenIsGood]

Its about low-cost, low-impact, low-carbon technologies located somewhere else

Ah yes, the old NIMBY slur is wheeled out again.

I once listened to a Dublin-based corporate fat-cat lawyer complain about NIMBYs in the west of Ireland getting in the way of his fast buck.

Apparently people who complain about their environment being trashed are just NIMBYs. People like Mary Curley whose family survived for generations on a fragile 16-acre hillfarm.

Over €340,000 for bogslide damage caused by construction of wind farm - The Irish Times - Fri, May 21, 2010

If she is a NIMBY, then I am with the NIMBYs.

[fiannafailure]

Ah yes, the old NIMBY slur is wheeled out again.

I once listened to a Dublin-based corporate fat-cat lawyer complain about NIMBYs in the west of Ireland getting in the way of his fast buck.

Apparently people who complain about their environment being trashed are just NIMBYs. People like Mary Curley whose family survived for generations on a fragile 16-acre hillfarm.

Over €340,000 for bogslide damage caused by construction of wind farm - The Irish Times - Fri, May 21, 2010

If she is a NIMBY, then I am with the NIMBYs.

GIG

I was pulling your chain, you are indeed entitled to your own view of how things should be done, and as I told you previously I was very pleased with Mrs Curleys result and believe it or not I would go a long way towards your view on bog conservation, there is in fact precious little intact bogland left and there are alternatives.

Perhaps someday we might have a tenuous meeting of minds.

Now saltwater thats a different kettle of fish.

[charley]

Does the pristine unique west of Ireland provide a living for its inhabitants, a lot of those inhabitants would say no.

and as i have stated already windfarms owned and operated by multinational corporations aided and abbetted by landthieves in the ESB aren't going to increase their sources of income.
any land for windfarms should be leased not sold to the energy companies and the landowner should receive a percentage of every watt sold to the grid. when the lease is up it must be returned to its original condition.
in the case of the ESB any poles that are not supplying electricity to the landowers house but are on his land should give a deduction to the landowners bill.
no access should be given to the ESB to fields without written permission from the landowner and assurances that any damage caused by the usually 10 vans,trucks and quads that will be tearing through it will be repaired.
this is landlordism rearing its ugly head in Ireland again.telling the people they will be tramped on to enrich a select few.

[Jethro]

Lets have a look at Denmark

Denmark, because of its location, is a colder place than Ireland and was hit very hard during the oil shocks of the 70's.

For those readers who are not yet past forty, this was not a good time for the first world, the cost of living almost doubled although wages didn't, in Ireland it spelt the end of a period of growth in living standards undreamt of in the early sixties, before the oil crisis, we had almost full employment, after the oil crisis, we had 20% unemployment.

People queued for hours to get 5 gallons of petrol and the country almost ground to a halt. Many factories closed or reduced to working a 3 day week, there was simply not enough energy available to power the country.

The Danish government decided never to be in that position ever again and set ambitous targets for oil independence, they decided to aggresively develop district heating systems using for example waste heat from powerplants which had to be oil independent and invested in coal burning power stations.
They decided also to incentivise energy efficiency with the imposition of an electricity tax and decided to both explore for oil and investigate renewable energy.

All of the above was done in public consultation and was endorsed by the electorate.

One of the subjects that emerged from this public consultation was that communities wanted to become involved in the ownership of this new renewable energy idea.

Money was invested in the wind turbine companies and to a very large extent they drove the development of wind energy from small turbines to the utility scale turbines we now have.

The result of this great national experiment is

1) A turbine manufacturing industry which now securely employs over 40,000 people.

2) A renewable energy research industry which employs almost 5000 more.

3) Community owned energy co op's which provide funds for locally important projects, which in turn employ thousands more.

4) Denmark has reduced its national CO2 output whilst substancially increasing its GDP, an achievement unmatched by any other country, although Spain and Portugal were close for a while, they are now begining to convert some coal stations to biomass, which will decrease their CO2 output again and in the absence of suitable sites for pumped hydro, they are also beginning to use constrained wind in those district heating systems to create steam.

5) Denmark is part of the Nord Pool electricity market along with Norway, Finland and Sweden, this market regularly delivers the lowest wholesale electricity prices in Europe, usually on the days that the wind is blowing strongly..

6) The Nord Pool uses quite a lot of derivetive type contracts, which in effect means that Denmark can at times sell wind energy to Norway, for use pumping fjord water into their conventional hydro plants, at below cost and still make money. The availability of energy has a value in contracts of this type.

All told Denmark has done very well from their experiment in renewables and the experiment just continues to give value to their economy as oil prices rise.

An employee of the Danish National Grid recently told me that Denmark would go to war to have the pumped hydro capability of Ireland, but they were a bit busy at the moment.

So in conclusion, wind energy is economically valuable if used correctly.
Intermittancy can be countered in two ways,

1) 100% back up from fast acting variable gas turbines, which negate any carbon savings and increases the cost of electricity.

2) Pumped storage, which will cost 20% of the energy but means you do not haveto build and run the gas turbines as back up, you get to keep the carbon savings and you also achieve the efficiencies of being able run conventional power plants in their most economic mode, full output, which saves even more carbon and most importantly saves money.

One more comparison.

An open cycle gas turbine has a useful life of about 20 years.

A pumped hydro station has a useful life of centuries.

How can you say the experiment continues to give value when it's electricity prices are, thanks to wind subsidies, the highest in Europe. All of those jobs created are simply at the expense of more efficient jobs that could be created elsewhere in the economy. Between '96 and '04, the annual subs were €257m.

The gamble on oil basically failed and given a new glut in gas reserves, new investment is also very risky. Over at the GWPF site a report shows where two major nuclear power companies are stalling future builds because of the expectations for gas. If only that could be the case over here...

[wombat]

The gamble on oil basically failed and given a new glut in gas reserves, new investment is also very risky. Over at the GWPF site a report shows where two major nuclear power companies are stalling future builds because of the expectations for gas. If only that could be the case over here...

This is where a long term strategy comes in. The ESB had a policy of not being over dependent on any one fuel type which is why Moneypoint was built. There are also better uses for gas but with the price dropping, its hard to resist building more gas plants. On the other hand, if the French had taken the short term view, they would be dependent on imported gas today. I would like to see an alternative to our policy of one off windmills backed by gas turbines but I think it would be silly to ignore windpower.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=charley;2744806]

and as i have stated already windfarms owned and operated by multinational corporations aided and abbetted by landthieves in the ESB aren't going to increase their sources of income.

Which is where the community energy Co op comes in, those multinational energy companies have already got their head around the concept abroad and form partnerships with the community.

any land for windfarms should be leased not sold to the energy companies and the landowner should receive a percentage of every watt sold to the grid. when the lease is up it must be returned to its original condition.

That is the modus operandi of S of I, where not alone is the land leased, the visual amenity is leased, local consent is leased, everyone in the hosting community gets a benefit.

in the case of the ESB any poles that are not supplying electricity to the landowers house but are on his land should give a deduction to the landowners bill.

They already do charly

no access should be given to the ESB to fields without written permission from the landowner and assurances that any damage caused by the usually 10 vans,trucks and quads that will be tearing through it will be repaired.

In actual practice no one from the ESB will enter land without permission

this is landlordism rearing its ugly head in Ireland again.telling the people they will be tramped on to enrich a select few.

There is an alternative.

[Jethro]

This is where a long term strategy comes in. The ESB had a policy of not being over dependent on any one fuel type which is why Moneypoint was built. There are also better uses for gas but with the price dropping, its hard to resist building more gas plants. On the other hand, if the French had taken the short term view, they would be dependent on imported gas today. I would like to see an alternative to our policy of one off windmills backed by gas turbines but I think it would be silly to ignore windpower.

There is nothing wrong with importing a good, that's what trade is all about. As to what energies we should be pursuing my basic point is that govt intervention should not be about selective subsidies or trying to 'pick winners'. Tax the externalities like carbon uniformly and then let the market decide given the new prices.

[wombat]

There is nothing wrong with importing a good, that's what trade is all about. As to what energies we should be pursuing my basic point is that govt intervention should not be about selective subsidies or trying to 'pick winners'. Tax the externalities like carbon uniformly and then let the market decide given the new prices.

If we let the market decide, we will end up completely dependent on gas which is fine for as long as supply exceeds demand. Remember, we are at the end of the pipeline and we are a small market, not a very secure position. I can't predict the future but I think it is very unlikely that gas will be a cheap source of electricity in 10 years time.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=Jethro;2745002]

How can you say the experiment continues to give value when it's electricity prices are, thanks to wind subsidies, the highest in Europe. All of those jobs created are simply at the expense of more efficient jobs that could be created elsewhere in the economy. Between '96 and '04, the annual subs were €257m.

The electricity tax came first as an incentive to use less electricity and as I reported, the electorate agreed to it, it wasn't simply imposed and it was only a few years later that it began to subsidise wind.

We now have the case where instead of importing oil from Arabia, Denmark exports turbines and knowledge to the Gulf.

Denmark now has the lowest subsidies in Europe and they are set to diminish again over the next few years, the subsidies are no longer needed there.

The gamble on oil basically failed and given a new glut in gas reserves, new investment is also very risky. Over at the GWPF site a report shows where two major nuclear power companies are stalling future builds because of the expectations for gas. If only that could be the case over here...

And from that report

They cite the low price of natural gas, the lack of a carbon tax to shift investment from fossil plants, and the risks of building a new reactor using the merchant model in de-regulated states.

Fracked gas is not as dependable as deep wells and has a very large environmental footprint, post BP's leak into the gulf I suspect this will begin to be costed up front.

Surely the last sentence is a plea for a subsidy ?

This is where a long term strategy comes in. The ESB had a policy of not being over dependent on any one fuel type which is why Moneypoint was built. There are also better uses for gas but with the price dropping, its hard to resist building more gas plants. On the other hand, if the French had taken the short term view, they would be dependent on imported gas today. I would like to see an alternative to our policy of one off windmills backed by gas turbines but I think it would be silly to ignore windpower.

Particularly at this time, a long term energy strategy, with a little confidence in our own resources is vital.

[GreenIsGood]

We now have the case where instead of importing oil from Arabia, Denmark exports turbines and knowledge to the Gulf.

Sounds great. Unfortunately thinking in dumb cliches gets us nowhere.

Wind power has had practically no effect on the amount of oil Denmark imports. If anything, it seems to have increased Denmark's dependence on cheap coal as they try to keep electricity prices down.

As explained by several posters and in the academic reports, Denmark's subsidies to the wind industry created jobs in one industry at the expense of more jobs elsewhere.

Ireland exports beef and other foods to the middle east. In effect, we export our water resource and import oil.

We call it "trade". It is nothing to be ashamed about.