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

[myksav]

No change in wind patterns in the last 20 years, and here I was thinking it had got warmer and damp, due to global warming.The questions i have raised are monthly wind patterns, and the storage of the energy when the grid is quite. No point a turbine flying at 3A.M. As for the money question, This group are looking for cash and because it seems private investors will not touch it. They are trying to put pressure on the goverment which means me the tax payer.Since the interveiw, Pat Kenny has being putting pressure on every Gov official to invest, Has Pat got shares in the idea.
As for scientist`s and engineer`s creating jobs for them selves, why lets look at NASA.Worthy engineering that costs the taxpayer a fortune for very little return. Sending a rocket to the moon that cured cancer.
,

Global warming, climate change, it's extra energy in the system. Extra warmth means more wind not less. It also means more damp as the sea water evaporates more.

No point a turbine flying at 3A.M.

What the heck are you on about? Shutting down turbines at night when there's less demand?? That's when you use the excess power to fill/top-up the resevoirs. D'uh.

You really should read up on the idea.

[myksav]

Exactly

Its a "power storage" or "battery" of you prefer. They have to put power in and then take it out. there are losses in between and they are much more than 25%.

The current pumped Hydro plant is a totally different situation in totally different circumstances.

Standard generating stations generate power all the time, it does not matter if its needed or not. You cannot just switch them on and off. You can do some planning around peak demand and bring some smaller power stations on line but they have to be heated up at all times generating CO2 and burning fuel. (turbine gas plants are the exception)

Turlough Hill works on the premise that why waste this power. When its been generated anyway and not be used lets just pump water up into a reservoir and then at peak times use it to give the grid a boost. Its only temporary providing a boost for a couple of hours around peak demand. its not designed as a back up for the grid and efficiency does not matter as there is huge amounts of available power to draw from.

What is being proposed is totally different. Pumped Hydro is be proposed as a a backup for the entire national grid.

Using totally random figures here but lets look at the following scenario.

la La land has a 10 MW average demand with a peak demand of 15MW. It decides that it will provide this 10MW demand using a combination of wind and pumped hydro.

So it builds reservoirs to provide 48 hours of backup and 10MW of wind capacity using 100 wind turbines

All goes to plan the reservoir is full and everything is in place. The wind turbines are generating 10MW quite happily until the wind fails in an area for say 6 hours and 3 turbines or 3MW is lost. Start up the pumped Hydro plant to meet the demand and then the wind pick up again.

All worked well.

Now 3MW for 6 hours means 18MW hours of capacity have been removed from the "battery".

To refill this will require require 18 wind turbines running for 6 hours. Except there are losses of say 50%. So now it will take 18 turbines 12 hours or 36 6 hours to replace the lost capacity. But that's OK because by night the demand drops by 40% to 6 MW for 8 hours. So that night the extra 4 MW can be sued for 8 hours to refill the "battery".

But hang on 4 MW X 8 hours is 32MW hours or a shortage of 4 MW.

Now that's assuming that for 18 hours out of 24 the turbines were running at 100% capacity and 100% efficency which will never happen. You need to build in extra generation capacity to allow for the fact that at no time will you have 100% capacity from your wind turbines. Then you have to build in extra capacity to refill the battery when needed. The lower your efficiency the more extra capacity is required.

With 50% efficiency if you plan on replenishing the battery at the same speed at which you drained it then you need to have extra wind power capacity of twice the generation capacity of that particular pumped hydro plant.

Its unlikely you will be using all your hydro plants at the same time but lets say 30% of your daily power comes from pumped Hydro then you would need to build wind generation capacity to meet your proposed supply level. Plus an allowance for certain levels if wind fluctuation plus and additional 60% to cover the requirement to re fill your battery.

So on LA LA land that would be 10MW plus which at 20% efficency woudl require 50MW generation capacity to allow for fluctuations in wind and 30MW to refill the battery.

So for a 10MW supply you would need to build 80MW of wind generation capacity. Drop your efficiency and that figure gets worse.

You can also decrease that figure by taking longer to refill the battery (say for each 4 hours drawn out take 8 to put it back) but that would require you to build even more storage capacity.

The capital costs would increase exponentially which ever why you go.

Also remember as shown earlier using current technology the land mass required just to build the wind farms to meet their supply figures not taking into account extra capacity to put into storage would be the size of County Limerick.

Imagine the environmental impact of that ? Imagine the cost of buying that land ? Imagine the cost of the turbines ? the infrastructure behind them ?

10 Billion would not even get you close.

So, what's your alternative? What we already have?
Tell you what, why not ban any and all new ideas, (even though this is actually an old idea that works)?

Should we wait until fuel prices rise above viability for power production and then think about replacing with other sources? And pay a hell of a lot more in capital costs?

Here's a parallel.
You have an unlimited local supply of food that is always fresh. You can eat what you want and not worry about spillage and waste. Any excess of what you consume can be exported.

You are dependant on outside supplies of food that has limits on availability. You can eat what you can get, after paying more for it. If supply drops or becomes too expensive, you have to eat less or possibly starve without rationing.

Which would you prefer?

[Geckko]

I'd say you are an oil company plant. Or right wing nut.

They are all over the internet - Global Warming deniers and those who are anti-windpower. And you can't be argued with. Everytime the facts will ignored and sensational claims made.

I have brought the facts, you have brought ad hominem.

Did you read the research on wind generation (among other alternatives) at the end of my link?

[sparkey321]

Underlined.
I guess you do not understand the concept of examples.

I do. It was a crap example and I was trying to point out the irrelevance of it.

Are you an electrician, perhaps?

Used to be. I qualified and spent many years in in industry working on everything from Automation to high voltage distribution, transformation, micro generation, UPS etc. I then worked as a project engineer for a few years concentration mainly on power, distribution, transformers, UPS's, backup generation etc. But that was a few years back now.

You look to be assuming that all turbines would be in one place, if you look at the proposal with unblinkered eyes you would note that all turbines about the country would be involved in supplying pumping power when there is the least demand on the grid.

No Im not. I am assuming the turbines will be built in clusters along the west coast but within the vicinity fo the reservoirs.

As to your calculations of final percentage, I find them suspect.

Oh I agree, i don't have near enough data to calculate final figures but i can say they would not be far from the mark. Pumps have a known general efficiency as do turbines losses through friction evaporation and leakage can be estimated. Someone else showed the calculations but hey look OK to me. I can go through them again if you wish.

They are also moot as the originator 'fuel' source is free.

Of course its not moot. Its an extremely serious problem and has dramatic effect on initial capital cost and the scale of the project.

The capital costs are moot as well, as any power system will require capital costs.

Of course the capital cost is not moot. The 10 billion quoted is nonsense and as i showed in a later post efficiency will have a HUGE impact on the turbine requirements and cost.

Of course all power plants have a capital cost but there is a huge difference between 500 million and 20 to 30 billion.

The primary advantage with Pumped Storage is that once the system is built, the fueling doesn't cost. Maintenance applies to all power systems. With fossil fueled stations, they have to shut down at least in part to do maintenance. That entire station supply has to be made up by other stations. This applies less to a 'scattered' source, one or two turbines being shut down for maintenance won't make any difference.
Shutting down the reservoir power take-off isn't a problem as it can be done while the wind is blowing with no loss of power to the grid.

Again crap. Maintenance does apply to all power generation systems but the cost of providing maintenance at one fixed location is far cheaper than providing it at a myriad of diverse locations. Plus the maintenance required on wind turbines is high. Do you think a reservoir turbine can be serviced in an hour ? It takes days or weeks, can you guarantee wind for a day ? or a week ?

That's not even an issue I was raising.

Do you have a solution to the future power requirements of the country that is proof against fuel source cut-off, seeing as we are 90% dependant on outside fuel sources to power our grid?

it doesn't matter what I think. The plan is not feasible. It would cost far more than 10 billion would require vast amounts of the west coast being taken over my windmills (and don't ignore the environmental impact of this). Its money wasted. Invest in research for power storage, fuel cells. The amount of money being thrown at green technologies that don't actually deliver benefits is frightening.

Nuclear? Not economically viable for Ireland using present technologies.

I thought capital costs were moot ? As were servicing costs ? Its a hell of allot more economically viable than what is proposed.

I stand on the content and meaning of my post, the detraction of this idea is pure oirish-ism. I see that in many ventures similar in scope as the SOI idea and, maybe it's the yankee side of me, but I find it to be one of the more stupid parts of Irish society/mentality. It's an inbuilt inferiority complex.

Why is it that any so called "green" initiative is beyond reproach regardless of how nonsensical it is.

The Prius is beyond reproach despite been proven over and over again to be less green than a modern diesel. Its less fuel efficient, takes more resources to build, and a shorter life. But no its green so of course its good.

Micro wind generation is another example. It raises the cost of our electricity and provides no benefit. the ESB have to buy the power when its available irrespective of demand and as they cannot depend on it they have to keep the power plants going anyway. But no we cannot discuss it because its "Green".

People spending thousands on wind turbines for their homes who's maximum output wouldn't power their kettle. Again nonsense but its "green" so beyond reproach.

Their is nothing wrong with my objectivity and have no inferiority complex. No nation with half an ounce of intelligence would touch this idea without a hell of alot more data.

[sparkey321]

I'd say you are an oil company plant. Or right wing nut.

They are all over the internet - Global Warming deniers and those who are anti-windpower. And you can't be argued with. Everytime the facts will ignored and sensational claims made.

No one is anti wind power, no one is climate change denier, no one is denying something has to be done but FFS some sense of reality has to prevail. The laws of physics exist. Why is it that some people cannot look objectively at these ideas.

Just because someone says its green, it involves wind and they tell you it works do you automatically believe them ?

[sparkey321]

So, what's your alternative? What we already have?
Tell you what, why not ban any and all new ideas, (even though this is actually an old idea that works)?

Should we wait until fuel prices rise above viability for power production and then think about replacing with other sources? And pay a hell of a lot more in capital costs?

Here's a parallel.
You have an unlimited local supply of food that is always fresh. You can eat what you want and not worry about spillage and waste. Any excess of what you consume can be exported.

You are dependant on outside supplies of food that has limits on availability. You can eat what you can get, after paying more for it. If supply drops or becomes too expensive, you have to eat less or possibly starve without rationing.

Which would you prefer?

Your parallel is nonsense.

Even the proposal as it stands will not supply the full demands of the country. Did you actually read it ? It will supply the average demand, not the peaks. Sure we will generate extra power at off peaks times but off peak for us is also off peak for our neighbours who wont want it then anyway.

None is debating the fact that we need to do something but do we need to invest billions in an idea that will not work...

If that's what you want to do I can sell you magic beans that will grow an electricity plant. It gives out power through is leaves. just connect them to the grid. All it needs is water, sun and a little fertilizer. 1 billion each ?

You interested.

By your own logic you should buy 10..

[joel]

No one is anti wind power, no one is climate change denier, no one is denying something has to be done but FFS some sense of reality has to prevail. The laws of physics exist. Why is it that some people cannot look objectively at these ideas.

Just because someone says its green, it involves wind and they tell you it works do you automatically believe them ?

I'm trained in Physics ffs!

[sparkey321]

I'm trained in Physics ffs!

Does not show.

[myksav]

Quote:
Originally Posted by myksav
Do you have a solution to the future power requirements of the country that is proof against fuel source cut-off, seeing as we are 90% dependant on outside fuel sources to power our grid?

it doesn't matter what I think. The plan is not feasible. It would cost far more than 10 billion would require vast amounts of the west coast being taken over my windmills (and don't ignore the environmental impact of this). Its money wasted. Invest in research for power storage, fuel cells. The amount of money being thrown at green technologies that don't actually deliver benefits is frightening.

Ok, you have no ideas for solutions beyond saying "The plan is not feasible." Ok, fine, sure.
Ah well.

As for fuel cells, they cost more in that they require breakdown of water to Hydrogen and Oxygen. What powers that requirement? Some of the materials needed for the cell itself are quite toxic, by the way. There's also the fact that hydrogen can migrate through metal quite easily leading to losses.

'Ah shure, we're grand as we are, no need for anything 'new' to be bothering with.'
I suppose you'll be putting in objections to any planning on this?

[maxthedog]

"Global warming, climate change, it's extra energy in the system. Extra warmth means more wind not less. It also means more damp as the sea water evaporates more"by Mysky

Its cold air that cause wind. Due to the fact its more dense.

Which funnily enough is an apt description of yourself and your refusal to let facts get in the way of green policy.