Spiritofireland.org - suggests energy independence in five years and much more

[Finbar10]

I have some sympathy for your views. I remember some newspaper
articles at the height of the oil price spike last year (a spike mostly driven
by speculators rather than fundamental demand ) about coal
liquefaction. Coal can be relatively cheaply converted into an oil
substitute. I think this becomes worth doing at around the 40/50 dollars
per barrel mark. It hasn't been done because vast conversion plants
would have to be built with hefty set up costs. If oil price consistently
and long term goes above these prices such plants will be built.
That's why I think we'll get in the short to medium term no sustained
very high oil price levels. Coals isn't infinite though. I think I read
there's definitely 200 or so years of fairly proven reserves (at current
rates of consumption). Perhaps there's 300 years all in including
undiscovered reserves. But if we were solely depending on coal
for all our energy we'd burn through this 4/5 times faster, it might
only last us 60/70 years.

I buy into peak oil. Oil production in the USA rose, peaked and then fell.
The same will eventually happen globally. I'd go along with arguments that
production capacity is around it peak. Coal-to-oil conversion can
take over and compensate for a while though.

And all that would release very substantial amounts of CO2. Most of
the carbon sequestration technologies I've seen doesn't look up to much.
Burying biochar is about the most plausible, and probably wouldn't work
on these kinds of scales. OK, when there's
a 100% "guaranteed" scientific consensus on climate change, I tend
to get a bit contrarian. Weren't they telling us back in the 70s
about the upcoming ice age? But if I were a betting man I think
we'll end up on the more scary end of possible CO2 temperature
rise scenarios (thawing permafrost, release of methane, feeback loops
etc.).

I expect we'll see rises in oil prices in the medium term but perhaps not as
drastically as people might think. Probably enough though to see some of
these alternative energy sources become economic. In pure cost terms
they probably can't compete with oil just at the moment when all other
factors are taken into account.

I'd go with nuclear personally. There has been interest over the years
in mining uranium in Donegal (never got the go ahead though). Building
such plants would cost billions and might take up to 10 years to set up.
Has worked pretty well in France though. We should be starting this now.
This windfarm scheme with the pumped storage might turn out to be a
feasible alternative. I suspect that if there's any technical merit to this
the Greens would jump at such a proposal. They seem very much set
against nuclear. It would also be a big step up from their current
(non)achievements in government (insulation grants etc.). If such a
scheme actually worked and was economic it would be
quite a thing to boast about coming up to the next general election.

Didn't see your question.

But:

Oil isn't ending. There will be enough supply to outstrip the life of any windfarm built today.

And don't forget coal, which is where electricity generation is very cost effective - that will see out a couple of centuries.

Energy security??? Up there with "food security". Funny we never hear about "clothing security", or "car security". What about "bicycle security", or "mobile phone" security.

[myksav]

But we have ample experience around the world to show what the cost of providing elecricity via windfarms is. It is prohibitively expensive to get reliable electricity supply via that technology.

An engineer will tick the engineering boxes, but that is only a small part of the story.

That is why the idea of using batteries (pumped storage) would work. With pure wind power the fluctuations go from too much power to too little. The use of the excess to pump water to resevoirs takes up that excess and when there is low wind, the stored energy is added to the network.
You are looking at this as distinct, discrete systems, not as a combined system.

An engineer would look at this from an engineering POV, and there is nothing in the idea that would not work. If you are alluding to financial costs to develop it right now, think what the costs will be in a decade or two's time.
The best time for this idea is now, during a recession when things will cost less because the seller wants to sell product.
Five years ago, the price of metals rocketed upwards due to demand from the likes of China, China is as effected by the recession as the rest of the developed and developing world and is buying less raw materials. This has dropped the price of metals making it more cost effective now.
In ten years time, the prices will climb again, making it less cost effective to start developing the idea.

A question for ya. What would you do to alleviate our energy problem if you say that this idea is no good?

[myksav]

But there is nothing to profit, everything to lose.

It is one of the most expensive ways to generate a reliable electricity supply.... get it??

Numbers for that claim, if you please.

Though I would have thought that nuclear was the most expensive in the long run, according to claims.
From what I remember, hydro is the least expensive system for power generation over the life-span of the system. Ball park figures; hydro gives about 80% efficiency, nuclear about 5%. Fosssil fuel power is variable due to oil price fluctuations. As the price of oil increases it becomes less cost effective. And the price of oil will increase.

[cathal maguidhir]

China Makes Huge Breakthrough in Wind Power Technology
by Zijun Li on July 4, 2006
ChinaWatch Logo
China Watch Home
About China Watch

Chinese developers unveiled the world’s first full-permanent magnetic levitation (Maglev) wind power generator at the Wind Power Asia Exhibition 2006 held June 28 in Beijing, according to Xinhua News. Regarded as a key breakthrough in the evolution of global wind power technology—and a notable advance in independent intellectual property rights in China—the generator was jointly developed by Guangzhou Energy Research Institute under China’s Academy of Sciences and by Guangzhou Zhongke Hengyuan Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd.

The Maglev generator is expected to boost wind energy generating capacity by as much as 20 percent over traditional wind turbines. This would effectively cut the operational expenses of wind farms by up to half, keeping the overall cost of wind power under 0.4 yuan ($US 5 cents), according to Guokun Li, the chief scientific developer of the new technology. Further, the Maglev is able to utilize winds with starting speeds as low as 1.5 meters per second (m/s), and cut-in speeds of 3 m/s, the chief of Zhongke Energy was quoted as saying at the exhibition. When compared with the operational hours of existing wind turbines, the new technology will add an additional 1,000 hours of operation annually to wind power plants in areas with an average wind speed of 3 m/s.

Xinhua News reports that more than 70 million households in China lack access to electricity, with most of them living in areas unconnected to power grids. The widely scattered nature of rural localities makes it difficult to supply grid-based power to these areas. The use of the full-permanent Maglav generator could potentially fill the power void in these locations by harnessing low-speed wind resources that were previously untappable.

With an increasing number of Chinese and international investors joining the global booming wind power market, the technology is expected to create new opportunities in low-wind-speed areas worldwide such as mountain regions, islands, observatories, and television transfer stations. In addition, the Maglev generator will be able to provide roadside lighting along highways by utilizing the airflow generated from vehicles passing by, said Xinhua News.

The global wind power market has seen tremendous growth in recent years, with Germany, Spain, and the United States ranking as the top producers in 2005. The output of wind turbines is increasing rapidly thanks to the world’s ramped-up wind power capacity. Global sales of wind power equipment reached $10 billion in 2004 and are estimated to reach $49 billion per year by 2012, reports Worldwatch researcher Janet Sawin in Vital Signs 2005.

[wombat]

That is why the idea of using batteries (pumped storage) would work. With pure wind power the fluctuations go from too much power to too little. The use of the excess to pump water to resevoirs takes up that excess and when there is low wind, the stored energy is added to the network.
You are looking at this as distinct, discrete systems, not as a combined system.

An engineer would look at this from an engineering POV, and there is nothing in the idea that would not work. If you are alluding to financial costs to develop it right now, think what the costs will be in a decade or two's time.
The best time for this idea is now, during a recession when things will cost less because the seller wants to sell product.

There was no specific information on the spiritofireland website, its just a sales brochure. If they are correct and have identified suitable sites, they need to be developed. I think its as daft to ignore renewables as it is to claim they will solve our energy needs. There is a dangerous belief among our politicians (not just Greens) that there is such a thing as a free lunch and that if they pick targets out of the sky they will be met by investors flocking to renewables. Remember when property tax breaks were given to solve a shortage in rental accomodation?
The biggest problem with wind is that it doesn't blow on demand. The "Yes Minister" answer is the interconnector to the U.K. A slight problem is that the U.K. are developing nuclear and one of its characteristics is that it produces a steady load so there is a likelihood that when we produce surplus wind power, no one will want to buy it. Luckily for us power can flow both ways.

[wombat]

Your engineering qualifications leave you badly positioned to judge what is good or not from a policy perspecitve. You naive statments about "generating jobs" "reducing imports" etc. are classics.

It is the lack of technical expertise among our politicians which leads to daft ideas getting funded. I was listening to James O'Reilly talking about health policy today and there was no waffle, he was specific about what he wants to do - he may be a one trick pony or he may fail but he is definitely not a waffler. Contrast that with the nonsense that is trotted out about energy. I thought the ESB had taken leave of their senses when they promised to be completely green by 2030 until I realised 1. they would all be retired by then and 2. the interconnector gives us access to nuclear, classic Yes,Minister

[Christel]

I'd like people to stop comparing this to Steorn. There is no similarity between the two. Streorn said they had an energy production idea that, on the face of it, broke the laws of physics. This lot however are suggesting a tried and tested system. J-power are already doing this in Okinawa, Japan (to a smaller scale though if memory serves me well). The system is very practical and is taught at undergrad level engineering. I remember my professor in final year remarking that it, by that stage, could only be a matter of time before we started using these systems as they made perfect sense.

As for the wind energy not being cost effective, that's a half truth. Up until recently the systems were highly underdeveloped but over the past 10 years huge research has gone into it and new systems and practices have been developed to over come many problems. "Blowing too hard" as one person mentioned earlier is a non-issue. I presume they are referring to times when the wind speed is at a certain frequency that it causes resonance of the blades which in turn damage the turbine mechanism. Any wind speed higher or lower will allow their continued operation. This can be over come by having two types of wind turbine on a single wind farm meaning that in the event of one set having to be turned off, the other set can continue to function, the reservoir can then take over any additional need on the system.

Wave power is not as viable yet as many people believe. It's a very underdeveloped technology that requires huge amounts of money to be thrown into R&D before it becomes another alternative.

As for this proposal.....I'm not sure if it will make us independent or an exporter of energy but two things are for sure.

1) It WILL decrease the amount of fossil fuels we as a nation import. This will save the taxpayer money.

2) It WILL create many much needed jobs in a sector that has been badly hit by the economic slump. These jobs would also be based in the west, an area that needs jobs more urgently than the east.

We have a real opportunity to be world leaders here. I hope that the sceptics don't ruin it. Fair play to the spirit crowd however for finally getting the country talking about the obvious abundant energy sources that we as a nation are not using.

Regards,
Rufty BE(Civil) MIEI

I'm very suspicious of this sweeping allegedly simple solution.

But in particular I have a problem with any job creation argument coming in. We had this with construction. Where did it lead to?

[orbit]

I suppose a political website is the last place you're going to find a dispassionate, well-informed, technical discussion of this proposal. But that's their fault for launching the project, with absolutely no technical details about its feasibility.

People need to realise that, of course this is possible, and can be built, but at what price? That is the question to be answered.

What I'd like to see them do, is to identify one or two sites, and provide their full estimated costings at those locations. What I'll be interested in (initially) is :-
- the location, (ie how easy will it be to reach for construction)
- the size of the dam(s)
- the size of the pipe connecting to the sea.
- the transmission lines (ie. where does it fit into the grid)
- and of course, the easy part, the calculations for energy storage and regeneration at the location.

Orbit (BA, BAI, MSc.)

[wombat]

What I'll be interested in (initially) is :-
- the location, (ie how easy will it be to reach for construction)
- the size of the dam(s)
- the size of the pipe connecting to the sea.
- the transmission lines (ie. where does it fit into the grid)
- and of course, the easy part, the calculations for energy storage and regeneration at the location.

Orbit (BA, BAI, MSc.)

Could not agree more. First show its technically possible, then we can look at costs and benefits.

[Gaothfar]

Can I again add a item Orbit's list: the method by which the reservoirs will be made waterproof. Several people have said that it is an easy matter - maybe some leakage. But, if there is any leakage of sea-water, the water table will be contaminated and all vegetation will die on all the land between the reservoir and the sea and over a wide surrounding area.
I am totally in favour of wind-generators - in fact I voted Green in the hope they would force the ESB to take my surplus and was rightly suckered.
Why won't Spirit of Ireland answer the questions?