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

[Geckko]

I take it you think the Swedish government plan for full energy independence by 2020 is "economic lunacy"?

Yes. Let me ask you some questions.

Does your household have "energy independence"? If not why not?

Does you household have "food independence"? If not why not?

Think it through and extrapolate out to local, then county, then provincial then national boundaries.

[Oppenheimer]

My point is we already have windfarms in Ireland. And we already have a small amount of pumped storage. Building more pumped storage is a good idea as it will allow us to make better use of our wind energy. But AFAIK the government is already committed to growing our windfarms, but instead of storage, will incentivise electricity users to use more power off-peak. This is cheaper and faster than building pumped storage.

BTW, I remember Enda Kenny saying recently he was excited by pumped storage. Although he seemed to be under the impression that it was a method of generating new electricity, rather than storage. The clue is in the name Enda!

Well what do you do with the stored water - take photographs?

[Geckko]

That was quick with the cost benefit analysis. Can you provide us with the construction cost figures you used?

You don't need to. The real world hard data is everywhere. Wind generated electricity is far more expensive and importanly still requires almost 100% back-up - hence the addiitonal cost and energy loss that would occur from the proposed storage system.

[joel]

You don't need to. The real world hard data is everywhere. Wind generated electricity is far more expensive and importanly still requires almost 100% back-up - hence the addiitonal cost and energy loss that would occur from the proposed storage system.

The proposed system IS the back-up!

Wind costs nothing in fuel. So the country would save billions in importing fuel AND be energy independent. In fact, it could be exporting energy!

[Watcher1]

This was discussed a few weeks ago - I ressurected that thread this morning after hearing them on the radio.

What makes this idea worthwhile is that you can get a reasonably big difference in level, up to 500 feet, very close to the sea.

This project makes serious sense from an engineering point of view and should be done immediately.

And it is even good politically to the peripheral regions who got next to nothing out of the Bertie Boom but are being screwed in the Cowen Bust.

Ah please, dont associate BA with the "boom". The fecker created the bust more so than Cowen.

Anyway, on topic, I think this is a good idea in its own right. I'd just be afraid that the red tapers in this country will kill it off. Didn't somebody already say one of the guys was meeting Mary to discuss it?

Also, why not look more into wave energy? It may be more in its infancy than wind energy but it offers a far better solution than wind in the long run. I will admit though, I'm not hugely knowledgabnl;e about wave energy other than seeing a report last year stating that an Irish company developed a generator that worked. They then buggered off to Scotland (I think) as the Irish government had no interest in backing it in any meaningful way. Not surprising for these muppets I suppose.

[Geckko]

The proposed system IS the back-up!

Wind costs nothing in fuel. So the country would save billions in importing fuel AND be energy independent. In fact, it could be exporting energy!

But it would be costing massive amounts to put in these massive windfarms, plus storage. Then they deliver only when the wind blows. When you work out how much it costs per unit of actual electricity used from the windmills over their effective life, it costs more than buying coal or oil and generating electricity that way.

Adding storage reduces the marginal cost, because you have some electricity when the wind isn't blowing (or blowing too hard - people tend to forget that). However, the storage won;t be enough to cover even 20% of peak demand, let alone 100% and you then have to factor in the added cost of building and maintaining those storage facilities and factor in the substantial energy loss experienced as you drive pumps to restor the potential energy and the loss from the generation as that is then released as well as the additional back and forth of power along the grid (it needs to make two trip instead of one).

Look at Denmark. More windfarm capacity than anywhere else in the world. They have interconnectors with Norway and Sweden etc. How much convential electricity generating capacity have they been able to take off line? None.

It is a false economy. As always the most basic of tests is why isn't it being done now? AnNswer is because the economics don't stack up.

[Watcher1]

You don't need to. The real world hard data is everywhere. Wind generated electricity is far more expensive and importanly still requires almost 100% back-up - hence the addiitonal cost and energy loss that would occur from the proposed storage system.

I find this incredible. How is wind generated electricity more expensive than fossil fuel generated energy? I'm not saying the statement is not true, I just find it very difficult to get my head around it. I'm working on the basis that in wind, the generators are the turbines which a fueled by a free fuel, the wind. I presume these trubines are then connected to a monitoring or other type station which would need to do various things like monitor the amount of electricity generated by the wind etc and also connecting the generators to the grid. Other efforts I am assuming would be the equivalent in a fossil fuel station. So, my understandinng of how this all works is that the cost base would be the same for both types of generators outside of the fuel that creates/helps create the electricity. Now, for wind, that fuel is free, fossil fuels cost money.

So where is the additional costs for wind?

I am truly confused.

[joel]

But it would be costing massive amounts to put in these massive windfarms, plus storage. Then they deliver only when the wind blows. When you work out how much it costs per unit of actual electricity used from the windmills over their effective life, it costs more than buying coal or oil and generating electricity that way.

Adding storage reduces the marginal cost, because you have some electricity when the wind isn't blowing (or blowing too hard - people tend to forget that). However, the storage won;t be enough to cover even 20% of peak demand, let alone 100% and you then have to factor in the added cost of building and maintaining those storage facilities and factor in the substantial energy loss experienced as you drive pumps to restor the potential energy and the loss from the generation as that is then released as well as the additional back and forth of power along the grid (it needs to make two trip instead of one).

Look at Denmark. More windfarm capacity than anywhere else in the world. They have interconnectors with Norway and Sweden etc. How much convential electricity generating capacity have they been able to take off line? None.

It is a false economy. As always the most basic of tests is why isn't it being done now? AnNswer is because the economics don't stack up.

Of course it will be able to cover peak demand - and more so. These are massive storage resevoirs. Filling them up with water will cost nothing as the electricity will be off-peak windpower.

[Geckko]

I find this incredible. How is wind generated electricity more expensive than fossil fuel generated energy? I'm not saying the statement is not true, I just find it very difficult to get my head around it. I'm working on the basis that in wind, the generators are the turbines which a fueled by a free fuel, the wind. I presume these trubines are then connected to a monitoring or other type station which would need to do various things like monitor the amount of electricity generated by the wind etc and also connecting the generators to the grid. Other efforts I am assuming would be the equivalent in a fossil fuel station. So, my understandinng of how this all works is that the cost base would be the same for both types of generators outside of the fuel that creates/helps create the electricity. Now, for wind, that fuel is free, fossil fuels cost money.

So where is the additional costs for wind?

I am truly confused.

It is the sum of a number of factors that all interact together, including:

1. The cost of building a windmill (these things aren't cheap and don't llive forever)
2. The theoretical optimal output of a windmill (the engineering bit)
3. The proportion of theoretical output that is delivered (wind blows too hard, too soft or not at all)
4. The uncertainty of output delivery (means you need to build in extra capacity)

The storage component is really a separate issue and a bit of a red herring.

It can help mitigate against 2 and 3, but not totally. Morevoer, the storage would also be a benefit in allowing load management over time (the ups and downs of demand dependng on the time of day) - but that would accrue to a coal fired station also. In effect - this advertisment is claiming that building these storage facilities would bring benefits only to a windfarm - but they would also rbing benefits to the existing system (hence the existance of one already!!)

Of course, you would be right to then ask - why if this is so inefficient, are there so many wind farms?

The answer is because of the massive tax payer funded subsidies that have been paid to the makers of these windmills (reducing therir cost somewhat) and the generators installing these windmills (allowing them to trun a profit - but only at tax payers' expense).

Hence we now see the wind farm industry in a free fall. Governments have turned off the money taps and these schemes have to rely on providing an economic return - but they can't get close to traditional technologies.

[joel]

It is the sum of a number of factors that all interact together, including:

1. The cost of building a windmill (these things aren't cheap and don't llive forever)
2. The theoretical optimal output of a windmill (the engineering bit)
3. The proportion of theoretical output that is delivered (wind blows too hard, too soft or not at all)
4. The uncertainty of output delivery (means you need to build in extra capacity)

The storage component is really a separate issue and a bit of a red herring.

It can help mitigate against 2 and 3, but not totally. Morevoer, the storage would also be a benefit in allowing load management over time (the ups and downs of demand dependng on the time of day) - but that would accrue to a coal fired station also. In effect - this advertisment is claiming that building these storage facilities would bring benefits only to a windfarm - but they would also rbing benefits to the existing system (hence the existance of one already!!)

Of course, you would be right to then ask - why if this is so inefficient, are there so many wind farms?

The answer is because of the massive tax payer funded subsidies that have been paid to the makers of these windmills (reducing therir cost somewhat) and the generators installing these windmills (allowing them to trun a profit - but only at tax payers' expense).

Hence we now see the wind farm industry in a free fall. Governments have turned off the money taps and these schemes have to rely on providing an economic return - but they can't get close to traditional technologies.

Irelands onshore windfarms are NOT subsidised.