18Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI checked the SOI website and I'm wrong about the surplus energy, they intend using some of their turbines to pump the water. They are talking in terms of 2,000 x 3MW so its a massive project.Originally Posted by wombat
I checked the SOI website and I'm wrong about the surplus energy, they intend using some of their turbines to pump the water. They are talking in terms of 2,000 x 3MW so its a massive project.
If engineers were wrong as often as economists, would anyone fly aeroplanes?
So how much of wind power created at the moment is lost?
Well check out the back of the envelope numbers above.
4000MW capacity would be needed to service 570MW to the consumer via the pumped hydro.
Don't tell me this isn't ludicrously expensive and a massive waste.
You are taking the wrong boundary for energy infastructure. In my calculations i consider from wind trbine to plug. You simply consider the actual station and even at that you would hae to use more efficienct pumps than are currently available.
To get your 75% you can adapt my previous calculation.
Basis 1000MW
We assume that the energy from the wind turbine does not have to be transformed to high voltage for transport and assume no transportation losses (impossible).
Next we have pump efficiency: we will assume a 85% efficiency which I think is too high. That leaves 850MW of energy remaining.
Then trbine efficiency of 90% (which is also a tad high considering control systems required and other losses). That leaves around 765MW and your efficiency of 75% is achieved.
However the energy coming from a trubine has to be transformed so that it can be transported both too the storage device and from the storage device. I also have not included other losses such as evaporation etc.
To implement PSH on the scale the SOI indicate (large energy storage) the efficiency will be no better than 50%. If we could use the energy directly as with conventional plants (i.e. after the plant has produced power), the efficiency is in the 90%'s as the only issue is transport.
Using a single energy source is not possible. Oil could not even do that (we also needed coal, gas and nuclear etc). The scale of this would be far bigger than the proposed severn barrage; and that is facing environmental issues of its own (see also three gorges dam, is it enviornmentally friendly to ruin an eco system to produce power).
I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers.
Siegfried Sassoon
Here is some real world experience on policies like this on a similar scale (but importantly as a smaller proportion of total electricity supply):
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf
Some selected key findings:
since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.The total subsidy spent and committed (NPV adjusted by 4%) to these three renewable sources amounts to 28,671 million euros ($36 billion USD).OUCH!!These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.
You're getting power out at 75% - with a zero cost for fuel. So, really "efficiency" doesn't matter, so long as surplus energy is stored, for when required.
Its the same with wind turbines - percentage output doesn't matter since the fuel is free.
its not 75% it 50% total. That increases the capital requirements dramatically. Fuel is also far from the only cost associated with generating power.
Also what would you do with all the existing ESB staff in the existing power stations ?
I might be mad but I think the "green bubble" is going to make the "dot com" bubble look like a blip. nation states have bought into and invested billions in ill thought out poorly conceived ideas. Its going to set the whole green agenda back 20 years.
The fuel is free but the capital cost of the plant, maintenance etc is not.
If wind power is so cheap why does it need a subsisy?
Mr Gormley described calls for the resignation of his cabinet colleague as "absolute nonsense". He said Mr Lenihan was doing "a very good job under exceptionally difficult circumstances".
Does it get a susidy? - evidence?
AFAIK wind-gen power suppliers are guaranteed a price per KWh far in excess of that paid to conventional (fuel-based) power suppliers...
Mr Gormley described calls for the resignation of his cabinet colleague as "absolute nonsense". He said Mr Lenihan was doing "a very good job under exceptionally difficult circumstances".
Reply With Quote