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

[Geckko]

Sparkey
It gets worse, you are a missionary, trained in the industrial schools of the 50s
Sin and be punished for ever and don't question me I cant sin but I can punish you for ever
well I will Question you I admitted I left out a word but so did you... poop

What I stand over is that at some sites 10Mw capacity could produce 4Mw
10Mw installed at a different site could produce 25Mw
10Mw installed at bad site could produce 15Mw
So the efficiency varies according to the site and we have great sites

The efficiency of a coal powered station is 30%
The efficiency of a new gas powered station is 50%
The efficiency of a nuclear station is 65%

Shall we move the game on

I suggest you read this excellent blog piece looking at load factors. It has good sources.

http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/200...of-wind-power/

The key points are:

• Global average load factors come out at around 20% - over the course of a typical year a 1MW windmill will be running at an average of 200kW.
• High rates (not even the ludicrously high 40% you quote) tend to get achieved over small installations. As the blog article notes, the best sites get built first and then the average load factor will decline from there. Building out IReland in the way this project demands would mean you should be conservative about achievable load factors, so 20% would be a bit above the European average.

So know that if you were to expect (you would know for sure) to meet peak Irish electricity demand of 5MW, you would need at least 25MW of capacity (ie 5 times the requirement). Even then, the wind might not blow at peak demand and the wind farms might only be generating 2MW.

Sure, the pumped storage is designed to see through that uncertainy. But how much capacity will the pumped storage hold and what is probability that you could find youself one day having had a run of low wind days and little remaining stored energy and windmills not turning??

[Calina]

Sparkey
It gets worse, you are a missionary, trained in the industrial schools of the 50s
Sin and be punished for ever and don't question me I cant sin but I can punish you for ever
well I will Question you I admitted I left out a word but so did you... poop

This is why I can't take you seriously. This is actually nonsense.

What I stand over is that at some sites 10Mw capacity could produce 4Mw
10Mw installed at a different site could produce 25Mw
10Mw installed at bad site could produce 15Mw
So the efficiency varies according to the site and we have great sites

The last time I checked, even Spirit of Ireland were coming up with a 25-35% figure which means not even they are matching your figures. So what you stand over is irrelevant in the context of discussing the Spirit of Ireland project. Could be is irrelevant. What matters is what's reasonably to be expected. Your 40% figure does not count in this respect.

The efficiency of a coal powered station is 30%
The efficiency of a new gas powered station is 50%
The efficiency of a nuclear station is 65%

Shall we move the game on

And again, I don't see how this is relevant in the context of discussing the viability of the Spirit of Ireland idea given the lack of detail in the Spirit of Ireland idea.

[Quixote]

Have a read of a fantastic book 'without hot air' free online by Professor David Mackay of Cambridge University.

David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Home

The book is a fair analysis of the real choices that face us regarding renewable energy.

Reading this it is clear that the principle of pumped storage has considerable merit and relevance to making real use of wind power. It is also clear that the scale of the challenge is massive and hyperbole from SOI claiming energy independence within 5 years does not help their case. To even get to 20-40% use will be a major achievement.

What we really need is a real proposal from SOI with real costs and also clearly stating where all the wind turbines are to be located to make sense of their proposal.

We then as a nation need to decide whether or not to go this route and we also need to look seriously at other options dispassionately (nuclear etc..) and make sense of a future where fossil fuel use will have to decline. Personally I would prefer both nuclear and wind/pumped storage as together in my view this would give a proper spread of energy sources.

[joel]

Have a read of a fantastic book 'without hot air' free online by Professor David Mackay of Cambridge University.

David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Home

The book is a fair analysis of the real choices that face us regarding renewable energy.

Reading this it is clear that the principle of pumped storage has considerable merit and relevance to making real use of wind power. It is also clear that the scale of the challenge is massive and hyperbole from SOI claiming energy independence within 5 years does not help their case. To even get to 20-40% use will be a major achievement.

What we really need is a real proposal from SOI with real costs and also clearly stating where all the wind turbines are to be located to make sense of their proposal.

We then as a nation need to decide whether or not to go this route and we also need to look seriously at other options dispassionately (nuclear etc..) and make sense of a future where fossil fuel use will have to decline. Personally I would prefer both nuclear and wind/pumped storage as together in my view this would give a proper spread of energy sources.

Even Texas has gone for wind! - they currently have 4mw output - enough to power Ireland! It provides jobs and energy security. And Ireland is even better placed.

[Jethro]

Even Texas has gone for wind! - they currently have 4mw output - enough to power Ireland! It provides jobs and energy security. And Ireland is even better placed.

Yes Joel, but with hefty subsidies thanks to plenty of effective lobbying by T.Boone Pickens et al. It all leads to one thing higher electricity prices.

The businessmen lobby for projects, get the funding, build their windfarms and become very rich out of it at taxpayers expense. Anyone who gets involved eg. the builders putting in the turbines take their profit. It is a transfer from the productive sector to the unproductive one.

Govts, however hard they try are not very efficient at allocating resources. Tony O'Reilly and Michael O'Leary (CAP funding) are other examples of this.

S of I will be just like this

[joel]

Yes Joel, but with hefty subsidies thanks to plenty of effective lobbying by T.Boone Pickens et al. It all leads to one thing higher electricity prices.

The businessmen lobby for projects, get the funding, build their windfarms and become very rich out of it at taxpayers expense. Anyone who gets involved eg. the builders putting in the turbines take their profit. It is a transfer from the productive sector to the unproductive one.

Govts, however hard they try are not very efficient at allocating resources. Tony O'Reilly and Michael O'Leary (CAP funding) are other examples of this.

S of I will be just like this

land based wind, afaik, is unsubsidised. The electricity is comparable to fossil fuel in price - and money will not be exported to pay for fuel.

[Quixote]

land based wind, afaik, is unsubsidised. The electricity is comparable to fossil fuel in price - and money will not be exported to pay for fuel.

Unfortunately Joel land based wind is totally subsidised in the sense that we have to pay for the electricity produced even when it is of no use because the current fossil fuel plants are at their full output and they cannot be rapidly turned up or down to take account of the variable wind output.

This is why pumped storage makes sense because the fluctuating and intermittent wind can become far more controllable and useful as an energy source.

[fiannafailure]

Yes Joel, but with hefty subsidies thanks to plenty of effective lobbying by T.Boone Pickens et al. It all leads to one thing higher electricity prices.

The businessmen lobby for projects, get the funding, build their windfarms and become very rich out of it at taxpayers expense. Anyone who gets involved eg. the builders putting in the turbines take their profit. It is a transfer from the productive sector to the unproductive one.

Govts, however hard they try are not very efficient at allocating resources. Tony O'Reilly and Michael O'Leary (CAP funding) are other examples of this.

S of I will be just like this

First of all, with the exception of nuclear, if there is a price support for wind you pay it on your bill not in your taxes.

S of I do not argue that nobody will make money, nobody does anything without making money with the exception of honest charities, do you work for nothing, S of I want you and me to be the businessmen making money

[orbit]

land based wind, afaik, is unsubsidised. The electricity is comparable to fossil fuel in price - and money will not be exported to pay for fuel.

It is offered a guaranteed price of €57 /MWh. That's effectively a subsidy.

[Geckko]

land based wind, afaik, is unsubsidised. The electricity is comparable to fossil fuel in price - and money will not be exported to pay for fuel.

Nothing could be further form the truth.

Look at an market where windpower is employed in the supply and it is heavily subsidised - although using different means.

Some like Ireland use a state monopoly supplier, regulated prices and spcific targets fo "alternative" electricity generation to effectively force electricity users to pay for the more expensive electricity.

Places like Denmark thourgh public money directly and indirectly at the industry (the Danish taxpayers have a lot tied to Vestas interests now).

Similarly Germany, Spain, the UK, the US. The amount of money people are forced to pay via transfers using the tax system, or enforced supply and prices is a feature in every market and the total amount of money fleeced from people worldwide is massive.