New electricity microgeneration programme announced

joel

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
803
If electric cars were used they could be charged overnight with wind power! THe ESB chairman has suggested it.
 


thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
joel said:
If electric cars were used they could be charged overnight with wind power! THe ESB chairman has suggested it.
Problem is that they need to be serviced in a local garage and only a major car brand would have the resources to do that. So far, none seem interested in taking up this technology.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
ballot stuffer said:
I'm totally opposed to this.
We are giving grants for inefficient generation of power. The money would be better spent creating larger wind power schemes.

Needless duplication of smaller less efficient turbines is not the way to go.
I think the idea is to create MORE efficient alternatives to the highly innefficient centralised plants currently in operation.

MicroCHP, where the central heating boiler is used to generate electricity first, and then use the waste heat to run the heating system is orders of magnitude more efficient than the centralised FF plants that dump the heat (>60% of the energy consumed) into the nearest river.

The real object, though, has to be Negawattshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negawatt_power.

Why waste capital building new generating and transmission capacity when it costs nine tenths less to reduce demand in the first place?

Oh yeah - because it provides profit opportunities for wealthy FF/PD supporters.

The sooner we dump the WingNut twaddle we've been fed for the last ten years about "competition" the better.

Here's an article from todays Independent that pretty much gives the WingNut game away - to anybody who can read, and comprehend, basic English.

Energy crisis fuels gas reserves debatehttp://www.independent.ie/business/irish/energy-crisis--fuels-gas-reserves-debate-1349806.html

The consultants also make a crucial point when they say that any proposed solution should not deter private sector involvement in the solution, a key recommendation in a country whose energy industry is tightly controlled by a few state owned companies -- Eirgrid, the ESB and Bord Gais.

CSA said it is important to ensure that any measure that is proposed by policy makers to enhance the security of supply on the island of Ireland should not distort the market in such a way that it prevents the private sector providing solutions on a commercial basis.

In an ideal world, the private sector would make the necessary investments to ensure a diversity of supply sources, including commercial storage of gas.
The object of the exercise should always be to provide the populace with the basic comforts at the lowest possible price.

We've seen how "competition" has driven UP the price of electricity and gas in recent years, and we can see how there is no motivation for the for-profit sector to actively encourage demand reduction measures.

Community owned Utilities are the way to go, and demand reduction, combined with distributed generation, is the best long term strategy we can offer Joe & Josephine.

Riding them for their last Euro is another option - but I don't think Ciaran Cannon will be in any position to continue that line of horlicksology before too long! ;-)
 

thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
The object of the exercise should always be to provide the populace with the basic comforts at the lowest possible price.

We've seen how "competition" has driven UP the price of electricity and gas in recent years, and we can see how there is no motivation for the for-profit sector to actively encourage demand reduction measures.

Community owned Utilities are the way to go, and demand reduction, combined with distributed generation, is the best long term strategy we can offer Joe & Josephine.
Renewable energy is currently fairly expensive. However, Minister Ryan has given assurances of a minimum price in the future to encourage development in this sector. As soon as it becomes mainstream, economies of scale, (and hopefully better and cheaper technology) will come onto the scene and prices will go down. :mrgreen:
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,868
thebrom said:
Renewable energy is currently fairly expensive. However, Minister Ryan has given assurances of a minimum price in the future to encourage development in this sector. As soon as it becomes mainstream, economies of scale, (and hopefully better and cheaper technology) will come onto the scene and prices will go down. :mrgreen:
I'm afraid its wishful thinking. Demand for equipment is so high at present that there is little chance of prices falling in the near future.The ESB's plans are typical "Yes Minister", their plans include keeping Moneypoint online because the only current alternative is to start building a nuclear station. Padraic McManus (ESB boss) admitted that clean coal technology has not been developed anywhere, he's betting that the U.S. utilities will develop it in time for the ESB to meet their targets. When he elaborated, he said the plan is to capture the CO2 and inject it into depleted gas fields. He knows that huge amounts of energy will be needed to compress the gas to a high enough pressure to get it to flow to the storage area but he also knows he will be retired by then.
Regarding microgeneration, its a good idea to offer funding to pilot plants but I would not expect them to be a solution to our energy needs. Gormley's ideas for upgrading insulation standards is not as glamorous but 100 times more effective in the short term.
 

thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
KingKane said:
You realise that this is limited to only 50 pilots projects. Can anyone hear the drop hit the ocean?
It's a test phase. If it works well, there will be a national roll-out. Fine Gael will be proud of your little point of information.
 

thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
wombat said:
thebrom said:
Renewable energy is currently fairly expensive. However, Minister Ryan has given assurances of a minimum price in the future to encourage development in this sector. As soon as it becomes mainstream, economies of scale, (and hopefully better and cheaper technology) will come onto the scene and prices will go down. :mrgreen:
I'm afraid its wishful thinking. Demand for equipment is so high at present that there is little chance of prices falling in the near future.The ESB's plans are typical "Yes Minister", their plans include keeping Moneypoint online because the only current alternative is to start building a nuclear station. Padraic McManus (ESB boss) admitted that clean coal technology has not been developed anywhere, he's betting that the U.S. utilities will develop it in time for the ESB to meet their targets. When he elaborated, he said the plan is to capture the CO2 and inject it into depleted gas fields. He knows that huge amounts of energy will be needed to compress the gas to a high enough pressure to get it to flow to the storage area but he also knows he will be retired by then.
Regarding microgeneration, its a good idea to offer funding to pilot plants but I would not expect them to be a solution to our energy needs. Gormley's ideas for upgrading insulation standards is not as glamorous but 100 times more effective in the short term.
The clean coal is only a percentage of the plan. If you believe that no major renewable technology will be developed in the next 30 years, then you considerably underestimate the creative genius of mankind.
Look at Norway. They have a target of 90% renewable energy by 2010! Let us not underestimate our potential
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,868
thebrom said:
The clean coal is only a percentage of the plan. If you believe that no major renewable technology will be developed in the next 30 years, then you considerably underestimate the creative genius of mankind.
Look at Norway. They have a target of 90% renewable energy by 2010! Let us not underestimate our potential
Its a major part, in the meantime continue burning pure carbon. The point about the ESB plan is that the technology has to be invented, proven and implemented by 2030. We can set any targets we want but we need realistic plans that can be implemented within a relatively short time frame.
 

thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
wombat said:
thebrom said:
The clean coal is only a percentage of the plan. If you believe that no major renewable technology will be developed in the next 30 years, then you considerably underestimate the creative genius of mankind.
Look at Norway. They have a target of 90% renewable energy by 2010! Let us not underestimate our potential
Its a major part, in the meantime continue burning pure carbon. The point about the ESB plan is that the technology has to be invented, proven and implemented by 2030. We can set any targets we want but we need realistic plans that can be implemented within a relatively short time frame.
I agree, but the clean coal technology is only planned to come into operation in 30 years time. As already stated in my previous post, I believe we will have a major new renewable technology by then.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,868
thebrom said:
I agree, but the clean coal technology is only planned to come into operation in 30 years time. As already stated in my previous post, I believe we will have a major new renewable technology by then.
My point is that a short term plan, 2030 is short term for the proposed changes, should be based on existing, proven technology. The only proven renewable technology which can make an impact in the timeframe is wind power. Gormleys plan for improving insulation standards will give a much better return on investment, its not glamorous but it will be far more effective (I'm not a fan of Gormley in case you think I'm prejudiced). There are three problems with large scale use of wind - onshore - where will we put them, currently 2MW is the limit for individual turbines and there are practical problems to increasing there size as the blades have to be bigger, increasing the height, so we need huge numbers. However the biggest obstacle will be from neighbours - NIMBY. Offshore is far more expensive and here we need to consider how much extra we are prepared to pay for electricity, the bigger the % coming from offshore, the greater the overall cost. Again the practical aspects of offshore - great on a nice summer's day off Mayo but what happens during winter storms. Despite all the propoganda, the reason the Corrib plant was built onshore was because the cost of going offshore is uneconomical. Wind farm operators are every bit as interested in profit as oil companies. Because of increasing demand for wind turbines worldwide, the cost of the equipment is unlikely to reduce in the near future. I believe we should develop wind power, I just don't think we should base a national strategy on targets which will not be achieved. As regards Moneypoint, the only practical alternatives are gas - which increases our dependency on Siberia or Nuclear which is off the agenda. I find it very hard to take a plan to reduce CO2 seriously when it includes keeping the single biggest source of CO2 emissions in operation.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
thebrom said:
Renewable energy is currently fairly expensive. However, Minister Ryan has given assurances of a minimum price in the future to encourage development in this sector. As soon as it becomes mainstream, economies of scale, (and hopefully better and cheaper technology) will come onto the scene and prices will go down. :mrgreen:
Fossil Fuel energy "is currently fairly expensive" also. It is going to become even more expensive in the future.

Renewable energy is currently comparable with FF energy. It is going to become cheaper in the future.

For example, electricity from gas became more expensive than wind electricity about three years ago. Wind has gotten cheaper since, and gas has gotten more expensive since.

This conventional wisdom that renewables are more expensive - or less efficient - than FF is something that needs to be challenged every time it is trotted out by the clueless (not you thebrom, I'm referring to the talking heads we hear in the media who pretend they know what they are talking about).


Wombat: The biggest source of CO2 emissions is waste. The quickest, cheapest, and most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is by conservation. The next most effective way to reduce CO2 is, in the words of Simon Coveney, to have "more forests and less cattle". This approach gives a double whammy - less methane producing cattle, and less FF requirement because of the increased use of biomass.


And, just to reiterate, a Nuke is not a practical solution, or a cost effective solution to the problems Ireland faces. It is a non runner.
 

Junkhead

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
2

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,868
SPN said:
Wombat: The biggest source of CO2 emissions is waste. The quickest, cheapest, and most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is by conservation. The next most effective way to reduce CO2 is, in the words of Simon Coveney, to have "more forests and less cattle". This approach gives a double whammy - less methane producing cattle, and less FF requirement because of the increased use of biomass.


And, just to reiterate, a Nuke is not a practical solution, or a cost effective solution to the problems Ireland faces. It is a non runner.
We were talking about electricity generation not agriculture. I got my BBC shows mixed up , the ESB response is not from "Yes Minister", its more like Blackadder "Brilliant, Majesty"
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
wombat said:
SPN said:
Wombat: The biggest source of CO2 emissions is waste. The quickest, cheapest, and most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is by conservation. The next most effective way to reduce CO2 is, in the words of Simon Coveney, to have "more forests and less cattle". This approach gives a double whammy - less methane producing cattle, and less FF requirement because of the increased use of biomass.


And, just to reiterate, a Nuke is not a practical solution, or a cost effective solution to the problems Ireland faces. It is a non runner.
We were talking about electricity generation not agriculture.
Like in Austria where some farmers got rid of the cattle, put the grass straight into the anaerobic digester (instead of putting it into the cow first), and then generate electricity with the methane. A much more efficient conversion of solar power than converting it into meat.

Agriculture has a huge opportunity to become a provider of other forms of energy - not just food energy - and the microgeneration approach is probably the one best suited - after wind.
 

thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
SPN said:
wombat said:
SPN said:
Wombat: The biggest source of CO2 emissions is waste. The quickest, cheapest, and most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is by conservation. The next most effective way to reduce CO2 is, in the words of Simon Coveney, to have "more forests and less cattle". This approach gives a double whammy - less methane producing cattle, and less FF requirement because of the increased use of biomass.


And, just to reiterate, a Nuke is not a practical solution, or a cost effective solution to the problems Ireland faces. It is a non runner.
We were talking about electricity generation not agriculture.
Like in Austria where some farmers got rid of the cattle, put the grass straight into the anaerobic digester (instead of putting it into the cow first), and then generate electricity with the methane. A much more efficient conversion of solar power than converting it into meat.

Agriculture has a huge opportunity to become a provider of other forms of energy - not just food energy - and the microgeneration approach is probably the one best suited - after wind.
I think there's also a lot of room for added value agriculture. The US/ European subsidiary agriculture model is coming under pressure from 3rd world governments at the WTO talks (IMHO rightly so). We need to differentiate: organic, biofuel, methane etc. We also need to ensure it is more economical for 3rd world countries to not turn their forests/ grassland/ rainforest into fields for biomass production. This would be counterproductive.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,868
We need to get realistic plans in place. There is no chance that we are going to replace the cattle herd with energy crops, so arguing about it is pointless.My point about the microgeneration program is that is a good idea to subsidise small experimental installations in the hope that some of them will be practical but that we can only build a national plan on proven technologies.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
wombat said:
We need to get realistic plans in place. There is no chance that we are going to replace the cattle herd with energy crops, so arguing about it is pointless.My point about the microgeneration program is that is a good idea to subsidise small experimental installations in the hope that some of them will be practical but that we can only build a national plan on proven technologies.
Correct: We DO need to get realistic plans in place.

Who is arguing?

I'm just sharing the background and some technical info on some of the realistic alternatives that are out there.

Once energy becomes more profitable than meat - which I'd estimate is about three years away - then the agricultural sector will change over to products that the market wants.

The key priority for Government should be to evaluate the technologies that are most appropriate to our needs, and then ensure we get some demonstration plants built. These ARE proven technologies, but their economics have always been undermined by cheap FFs. As we start to drop off the peak of oil production, and exporting countries have less to export, we need to have our own indigenuous supply chains built and operating.

This is not rocket science!
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,868
Just had a look at the ESB website. Their plan is to have 1400 MW of windpower by 2020. Present generators are 1.5 MW, allow that they may get to 2 MW over the next few years - a 50% increase in capacity is pretty optimistic which leaves us with 700 turbines to be built by 2020 i.e in 12 years. Is this realistic? Where will we put them? Their long term plan is to have 6000 MW by 2035, 3000 turbines - will there be room left on the island for people? The ESB are planning investing €4 billion in direct costs + €6.5 billion in enabling costs for renewables. (For interest, Moneypoint is listed at 900 MW, Poolbeg Oil&Gas is listed at 1,000 MW)The present mantra is that capital spending by the state is good, spend and borrow if necessary but do we not need to subject capital spending to the value for money question?
There are many technologies which exist at present which reduce energy costs incrementally - most capital spending in private companies look at energy saving features as part of the life cycle costs - but they're not spectacular.
Looking at the practicalites, the short term solution looks like conservation rather than alternative technologies.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top