Wind provided 37 per cent of Ireland’s electricity in Q1 2019(iwea.com)
iwea.com
Wind provided 37 per cent of Ireland’s electricity in Q1 2019
https://www.iwea.com/latest-news/2190-iwea-publishes-first-quarterly-wind-report
99 comments
It's not only wasting energy that the wind turbines could be generating. Power grids also have to maintain reserve and contingency so that if the wind suddenly dies everywhere (unlikely, but possible) they can more or less immediately compensate so the grid doesn't desynchronize. This is very expensive and inefficient. A storage solution that is co-located with the turbines would be optimal, as the best sources of wind are often far from urban areas. This means that quite often even if the power is required by the grid, it can't be used as grid constraints don't allow it. Violating grid transmission constraints leads to drooping power lines and cows exploding in fields (this is not an exaggeration).
Source: I designed the control room systems for electricity balancing for National Grid in the UK.
Source: I designed the control room systems for electricity balancing for National Grid in the UK.
Well, that's ~100 kWh per car on the road in Ireland, or about the capacity of a full Tesla. The transition to EVs is going to go hand in hand with the transition to renewables, because then you've got a significant amount of demand you can switch on and off at will (or run in reverse, in the case of battery to grid systems).
The future will probably look something like: under normal use, you set your 100kWh car to be able to use half of its battery for grid stabilization, and in return receive charging at perhaps 1/4 the standard price. If you're planning a longer range trip, you turn that off and your full battery is waiting for you.
The future will probably look something like: under normal use, you set your 100kWh car to be able to use half of its battery for grid stabilization, and in return receive charging at perhaps 1/4 the standard price. If you're planning a longer range trip, you turn that off and your full battery is waiting for you.
Are those batteries actually good enough at cycling that this would work though? What is the cost of degradation?
Vehicle to grid isn't required for what I'm describing; as a first step you can just allow the grid to decide when to charge the cars, which will account for ~20% of total electricity consumption.
Tesla claims their latest battery packs will be good for 1 million miles; if true, they'll be more than good enough for vehicle to grid use.
Even with today's endurance levels though, there will always be some amount of vehicle to grid transfers use that would make sense, since you can use it to shave off expensive peaks in demand. I don't know about Ireland, but in Australia that gets extremely costly:
https://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/wholesale-power-pric...
Tesla claims their latest battery packs will be good for 1 million miles; if true, they'll be more than good enough for vehicle to grid use.
Even with today's endurance levels though, there will always be some amount of vehicle to grid transfers use that would make sense, since you can use it to shave off expensive peaks in demand. I don't know about Ireland, but in Australia that gets extremely costly:
https://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/wholesale-power-pric...
[deleted]
Those €4000 prices are when demand outstrips supply. Which likely is when wind is generating 0.
Ps.: While such high prices are annoying for customers, they are critical to drive investment into low carbon dispatchable capacity like batteries, pumped hydro, or nuclear. Legislating some roof on the price will make the problem worse, not solve it!
Ps.: While such high prices are annoying for customers, they are critical to drive investment into low carbon dispatchable capacity like batteries, pumped hydro, or nuclear. Legislating some roof on the price will make the problem worse, not solve it!
Totally! If we could just store that 'wasted' energy and release it at peak times we could go a long way to improving the overall energy mix - but I know that is no easy or cheap fix!
As someone from the west of Ireland, if we could capture all the wind we could probably power the whole of Europe :)
I just read that there is a huge powerline being built from Ireland to France, so Ireland could become a large electricty exporter to the continental Europe. This could work in both directions, while wind strength in one place can vary strongly over time, the larger scale you connect regions together, the less fluctuation there is.
As someone who used to live in north west Donegal, I completely agree. I think we had about two days a year where the wind didn't blow a minor gale :)
Would it make sense for crypto mining farms to be placed close to the source and pay for the wasted energy thus subsidizing the turbines?
I often hear this theory but I wonder wether the economics make sense.
https://www.coinmint.io/data-centers/
Not wind, but hydro and similar usecase. The Massena facility is in an old Alcoa aluminum smelter plant. Electricity comes from the nearby Moses-Saunders Power Dam.
The smelter used to draw a consistent amount of power to keep the pots hot. Now, that the smelter shut down, coinmint is taking over and drawing a consistent rate of power using the miners. The consistent power draw is good for the equipment at the dam.
Using the power closer to the source is also better than transmitting it elsewhere at a loss.
Not wind, but hydro and similar usecase. The Massena facility is in an old Alcoa aluminum smelter plant. Electricity comes from the nearby Moses-Saunders Power Dam.
The smelter used to draw a consistent amount of power to keep the pots hot. Now, that the smelter shut down, coinmint is taking over and drawing a consistent rate of power using the miners. The consistent power draw is good for the equipment at the dam.
Using the power closer to the source is also better than transmitting it elsewhere at a loss.
Yes, I think it's also worth noting that the way it is currently set up, the Irish grid can't take more than 50% of its electricity from renewables. So storage should really help here, in terms of matching supply to demand and smoothing things out.
its electricity
If you're suggesting that once it's electricity it's all the same you're somewhat right, but one of the issues is the variability of renewables. Available wind power can fluctuate wildly, going from 30% to nothing in a day, and a solid baseline of power is needed. In Ireland. this baseline is currently provided mainly by coal and gas plants which despite the pollution, are steady and reliable. A cleaner alternative for this baseline generation would be nuclear power but sadly I don't see that happening in Ireland any time soon.
I suspect the poster is being pedantic about "its" vs "it's"
yea, wonder if using something like Tesla's battery thing that they deployed in Australia and the like would work here...
The battery in South Australia provides fine grained stability—smoothing out demand with near-instant response times. Unless you want to install a battery ten times larger again, you still need some way of storing large amounts of generated electricity.
Pumped hydro is a great option if the geography allows for it.
Pumped hydro is a great option if the geography allows for it.
Yea. Ireland had the first one here in Europe. Went on an open day a few years back. Impressive bit of kit.
[deleted]
Great news! Ireland needs to become less reliant on coal and peat, two of the absolute worst energy sources in terms of pollution.
Funny quote from the article:
"A single megawatt is equivalent to around 1,000 kilowatts."
A single megawatt is equivalent to _exactly_ 1,000 kilowatts.
Funny quote from the article:
"A single megawatt is equivalent to around 1,000 kilowatts."
A single megawatt is equivalent to _exactly_ 1,000 kilowatts.
Read this book on peat use in Ireland a while back -> http://www.books.ie/brown-gold-a-history-of-bord-na-mona-and...
It was part of DeValeras mad drive for "national self-sufficiency" back in the 40s and 50s. The inefficiency of the plants is mind-boggling. Peat burns at an extremely low heat in comparison to coal or gas.
Another interesting article on why peat is such a bad idea -> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/why-peat-is-most...
[peat] has a lower calorific value than coal (generating less energy per tonne when it is burned) and yet it produces higher CO2 emissions per unit, so it is the least climate-efficient way to produce electricity or heat in Ireland bar none.
It was part of DeValeras mad drive for "national self-sufficiency" back in the 40s and 50s. The inefficiency of the plants is mind-boggling. Peat burns at an extremely low heat in comparison to coal or gas.
Another interesting article on why peat is such a bad idea -> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/why-peat-is-most...
[peat] has a lower calorific value than coal (generating less energy per tonne when it is burned) and yet it produces higher CO2 emissions per unit, so it is the least climate-efficient way to produce electricity or heat in Ireland bar none.
Might be a typo and they meant "MebiWatt" :)
/gets coat.
/gets coat.
Immediately followed by:
"Boiling a kettle, for example, takes around two kilowatts."
I guess that was a very small amount of water or it was already pretty hot.
"Boiling a kettle, for example, takes around two kilowatts."
I guess that was a very small amount of water or it was already pretty hot.
While I agree that the word 'boiling' should probably be replaced by 'running', the power draw of a typical kettle is indeed around 2 kilowatts. The amount of water or the starting temperature is not relevant for the power, but just for the total energy required, measured in kWh.
You are right. I mis-read the latter part due to the former implying total energy.
Today, there is no wind in Ireland (only 5% load)
They use coal, gaz and oil instead. They are producing almost 500g of eq-CO2 per KWh.
This is a greenwashing post. Ireland produce a lot of greenhouse gas in power generation.
Countries with low emissions use hydro-electricity or nuclear reactors.
Data here => https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
They use coal, gaz and oil instead. They are producing almost 500g of eq-CO2 per KWh.
This is a greenwashing post. Ireland produce a lot of greenhouse gas in power generation.
Countries with low emissions use hydro-electricity or nuclear reactors.
Data here => https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
Saying this is greenwashing is rather extraordinary doublespeak and is an element of the contrarian cynicism that just muddies the waters.
Ireland relied upon overwhelmingly greenhouse gas producing power generation in years past. This year they're on target to hit 1/3 of their power generation from wind power. That is fantastic, and is a remarkable accomplishment. There is no "greenwashing". Throwing in the momentary wind percentage is absurd in the context.
Ireland relied upon overwhelmingly greenhouse gas producing power generation in years past. This year they're on target to hit 1/3 of their power generation from wind power. That is fantastic, and is a remarkable accomplishment. There is no "greenwashing". Throwing in the momentary wind percentage is absurd in the context.
We also have interconnects that pull power from the UK and soon France too.
We're fully aware of our dependence on fossil fuels (though what's down in that map as 'coal' for Ireland is mostly actually turf, not coal). The whole point of this exercise is to move away from it and diversify our energy sources.
The whole point of interconnects is so that as we ramp up on renewable sources, we need some way to smooth out the ramp-up and ramp-down.
We already produce/store as much from hydro as we can. We have the same issue as the Netherlands has in that Ireland is a relatively flat country.
Negligence in the UK regarding their nuclear energy sector pretty much killed any chance of a nuclear power plant ever existing on the island of Ireland. That might chance when practical non-fissile nuclear sources come along, but not yet.
This isn't greenwashing: this is a sign of progress. Nobody expects a single renewable source to be a panacea, nor that they'll eliminate the need for non-renewables any time soon. However, they do allow us to transition to a state where we're less dependent on them and can stretch out our supply.
We're fully aware of our dependence on fossil fuels (though what's down in that map as 'coal' for Ireland is mostly actually turf, not coal). The whole point of this exercise is to move away from it and diversify our energy sources.
The whole point of interconnects is so that as we ramp up on renewable sources, we need some way to smooth out the ramp-up and ramp-down.
We already produce/store as much from hydro as we can. We have the same issue as the Netherlands has in that Ireland is a relatively flat country.
Negligence in the UK regarding their nuclear energy sector pretty much killed any chance of a nuclear power plant ever existing on the island of Ireland. That might chance when practical non-fissile nuclear sources come along, but not yet.
This isn't greenwashing: this is a sign of progress. Nobody expects a single renewable source to be a panacea, nor that they'll eliminate the need for non-renewables any time soon. However, they do allow us to transition to a state where we're less dependent on them and can stretch out our supply.
> Negligence in the UK regarding their nuclear energy sector pretty much killed any chance of a nuclear power plant ever existing on the island of Ireland
Huh? How does that follow? Besides I thought Ireland started and abandoned building a nuclear plant sometime in the 70s.
I know nuclear is currently prohibited there, but not why, only that it was fairly recent.
Huh? How does that follow? Besides I thought Ireland started and abandoned building a nuclear plant sometime in the 70s.
I know nuclear is currently prohibited there, but not why, only that it was fairly recent.
You've heard of Sellafield, right? That's what finally killed any chance of a nuclear plant being set up in Ireland.
The Carnsore Point plant was mooted in the 70s, but the opposition was so great it had to be shelved.
There's some talk of a gen IV plant being built to replace Moneypoint, but I can't see it happening.
It's not prohibited, but the opposition to it amongst the population is great enough that it's not feasible politically.
The Carnsore Point plant was mooted in the 70s, but the opposition was so great it had to be shelved.
There's some talk of a gen IV plant being built to replace Moneypoint, but I can't see it happening.
It's not prohibited, but the opposition to it amongst the population is great enough that it's not feasible politically.
Fair enough - I assumed it couldn't be that as the worst cock ups were far further back than Carnsore era - like the Windscale fire in the 50s. That and governments everywhere not really doing much consultation or reaction to public opinion back then. Recent issues have seemed more of privatisation than negligence - still not what we want of nuclear of course.
I'd like decommissioning to go far smoother as they're just down the road from us, should there be another cock up.
Wikipedia seems to think it is prohibited - 1999 Electricity Regulation Act. I only ever heard oblique references to it being banned, with no further explanation, so I know nothing more. Even Wikipedia raises more questions than answers.
I'd like decommissioning to go far smoother as they're just down the road from us, should there be another cock up.
Wikipedia seems to think it is prohibited - 1999 Electricity Regulation Act. I only ever heard oblique references to it being banned, with no further explanation, so I know nothing more. Even Wikipedia raises more questions than answers.
Oh, it very much is: Windscale and Sellafield are linked in the public mind here. Here, Sellafield was seen as a rebranding exercise for Windscale.
> Wikipedia seems to think it is prohibited - 1999 Electricity Regulation Act.
I was careful with my use of language: it's not illegal, but under 18.6 of the act, "An order under this section shall not provide for the use of nuclear fission for the generation of electricity."
So it's not _illegal_ or banned, but the goverment simply won't grant licenses. Also, it specifically refers to fission. Something like the thorium fuel cycle might be considered legal under the act, depending on how you read it.
> Wikipedia seems to think it is prohibited - 1999 Electricity Regulation Act.
I was careful with my use of language: it's not illegal, but under 18.6 of the act, "An order under this section shall not provide for the use of nuclear fission for the generation of electricity."
So it's not _illegal_ or banned, but the goverment simply won't grant licenses. Also, it specifically refers to fission. Something like the thorium fuel cycle might be considered legal under the act, depending on how you read it.
Since 37% is an average there ought to be periods with a lot more than 37% coming from wind if 5% phases happen from time to time as well.
How is this greenwashing exactly?
How is this greenwashing exactly?
I think it re-enforces the confusion that wind/solar is the best strategy to reduce CO2 emissions. It may be in some places, but not everywhere, it may even be counter-productive. For instance, France has low CO2 emission as most of its electricity is from nuclear plants. If global warming is the most immediate treat, it would make little sense to dismantle them now. There are much better investments to make than buying solar panels. That's an issue I'm having with the green party in France who doesn't seem to recognize this.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to dismantle safe nuclear plants within their normal operating lifetime, but I'm not convinced it makes sense to build any more - and the lead time is about a decade!
Out of interest - what would you say those better investments are, that we could make?
I'm not an expert but in France where electricity production is nuclear, I'd say renovating housing (heating systems/insulation), promoting public transportation and discouraging the use of polluting vehicles, improving industry efficiency...
Agree - though with the amount that we currently subsidise nuclear in the UK, I'd rather we did both (invest in non-engery producing green tech AND invest in renewables)
You gave the answer in your own question. The fact that it is not a constant 37% is the problem here. What do you do when you get 10x less wind than the average? People still expect the same services (train, heaters..) to run
It's wind. It can't be a constant. Winds vary.
So all that matters is having a suitable mix, including wind, to produce low or no emission power. It will also include hydro and pumped storage, of which Ireland has several. There's probably not many suitable sites they aren't already using. Solar and possibly wave or tidal too.
That they're not going fast enough (no one is) still doesn't make it greenwashing.
So all that matters is having a suitable mix, including wind, to produce low or no emission power. It will also include hydro and pumped storage, of which Ireland has several. There's probably not many suitable sites they aren't already using. Solar and possibly wave or tidal too.
That they're not going fast enough (no one is) still doesn't make it greenwashing.
Then and only then they use other power sources. Even if those sources are coal, so what? It’s not like the coal plants have to run 24/7 even when the wind is blowing.
It means you have to dimension your coal power plants so that they can cover the case where there is no wind and accept to not use them when there is plenty of wind.
And that does not sound economically good [1]:
"Fixed costs combined with lower running hours are devastating for coal power economics."
To be clear I am not advocating for using coal instead of renewables. However advertising a total amount of "clean" intermittent energy produced without talking about what happens the rest of the time is greenwashing.
[1] https://www.carbontracker.org/understanding-operating-cost-c...
[1] https://www.carbontracker.org/understanding-operating-cost-c...
I don’t think that “wind power makes coal more expensive” is a good argument against wind, especially as the majority appear to agree that coal is bad and we should have less of it. Also, didn’t the coal plants already exist before the wind turbines were built? So they’re already at the size for fallback supply?
I am not making an argument against wind.
I am making an argument against claims that amount of kWh generated by intermittent sources has the same economical value as the same amount generated by sources we can pilot to match the demand.
"the majority appear to agree that coal is bad and we should have less of it". The majority also agrees that they don't want their electricity bill to rise.
Coal plants need to be maintained and upgraded to match regulations. That's a cost after construction that you have to pay for even if you're not running the plant
> I am making an argument against claims that amount of kWh generated by intermittent sources has the same economical value as the same amount generated by sources we can pilot to match the demand.
In that case, I think we agree. I’m still anticipating alternative balancing solutions, but we agree on this.
In that case, I think we agree. I’m still anticipating alternative balancing solutions, but we agree on this.
As the capacity factor of wind is something like 30-40%, it's not "then and only then" those fossil plants will be running, it's most of the time. To reach 2C targets that's not nearly good enough.
Wind produced 37% of the country’s energy so far this year. That’s 37% not produced by coal. That it isn’t a complete solution should not be classified as a dealbreaker especially given it’s still growing and power supplies are multi-sourced anyway.
Sure, it's A LOT better than doing nothing. Just saying that merely more of the same isn't necessarily a pathway towards deep decarbonization.
That's what interconnects partly are for. Ireland is an island, but its grid is no longer separated from the rest of Europe. We're getting closer to a point where, when we have a surplus, it can get sent elsewhere, and when we have a deficit, it can be pulled from elsewhere.
Sure. If you assume that electricity from renewables are randomly distributed in time across your grid then all countries can do that. Unfortunately it's not the case (it's night time in Ireland and France at roughly the same hours) and so this model relies on the fact that other countries have non intermittent power sources that can kick in when it's night time and there is no wind. You've just moved the problem
Let's get one thing straight here: neither I nor anybody else is arguing that renewables (which are currently mostly intermittant) can replace non-renewable sources. They are, however, complementary: the more power you generate from the renewables, the longer you can stretch out the supply of the non-renewables. And that is an unqualified good.
Of course the problem just moved. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the way that it moves can itself be beneficial.
> If you assume that electricity from renewables are randomly distributed in time across your grid then all countries can do that.
That's not an argument I'm making. The closest I come to that is that the distribution of power sources across different interconnected grids can compensate for each other.
Distribution isn't random: geography figures into this hugely. Ireland has vast areas off its Atlantic coasts to put off-shore windfarms in addition to the current mostly land-based ones.
Most wind power generated, especially off-shore, is generated around the time of peak hours. That means a potential surplus around the same time, which can be sent elsewhere, where they're also hitting their peak hours. At the risk of vastly oversimplifying things, power can flow back and forward over the interconnects, covering the difference, and we're good enough at forecasting usage and availability at this point that the surpluses and deficits can be accounted.
Intermittant and non-intermittant sources are complementary. The problem is moved, but
Of course the problem just moved. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the way that it moves can itself be beneficial.
> If you assume that electricity from renewables are randomly distributed in time across your grid then all countries can do that.
That's not an argument I'm making. The closest I come to that is that the distribution of power sources across different interconnected grids can compensate for each other.
Distribution isn't random: geography figures into this hugely. Ireland has vast areas off its Atlantic coasts to put off-shore windfarms in addition to the current mostly land-based ones.
Most wind power generated, especially off-shore, is generated around the time of peak hours. That means a potential surplus around the same time, which can be sent elsewhere, where they're also hitting their peak hours. At the risk of vastly oversimplifying things, power can flow back and forward over the interconnects, covering the difference, and we're good enough at forecasting usage and availability at this point that the surpluses and deficits can be accounted.
Intermittant and non-intermittant sources are complementary. The problem is moved, but
Precisely - we're still going to miss our CO2 reduction targets by a mile: https://www.rte.ie/news/environment/2019/0515/1049589-carbon...
Could have fooled me. I'm standing at a shop front right now to get out from the wind & rain.
But it's true, we're not the best example of clean power relative to nearby countries. That said, wind is going ok.
But it's true, we're not the best example of clean power relative to nearby countries. That said, wind is going ok.
There's not many suitable sites for hydro in Ireland that aren't already used.
Interesting thing about electricity bills in Ireland is that we pay a Public Service Obligation Levy on every bill. Part of that goes to subsidising investment in renewable energy to help reduce emissions. The other part of it goes to subsidising electricity generation using peat which is even worse than coal for emissions so the good and the bad might cancel each other out.
In their defence, they are phasing out using peat but I just am annoyed at it.
In their defence, they are phasing out using peat but I just am annoyed at it.
Oh interesting, using Brave I get the following warning message opening that link, similar to a invalid ssl certificate warning with an option to proceed:
"Did you mean ikea.com? The link that you originally opened is unusual"
(the domain is iwea.com)
Totally off topic but an interesting and probably quite good feature. Doesn't happen in Chrome for me so must be something Brave specifically implemented.
"Did you mean ikea.com? The link that you originally opened is unusual"
(the domain is iwea.com)
Totally off topic but an interesting and probably quite good feature. Doesn't happen in Chrome for me so must be something Brave specifically implemented.
> probably quite good feature.
Strikes me as similar to the issue I have with Google thinking I typed something wrong into search, and instead serves me whatever their algorithm thinks I wanted, but is actually not at all what I wanted and what I typed into search wasn't incorrect.
I find that quite frustrating. It wasn't like that in the past.
Strikes me as similar to the issue I have with Google thinking I typed something wrong into search, and instead serves me whatever their algorithm thinks I wanted, but is actually not at all what I wanted and what I typed into search wasn't incorrect.
I find that quite frustrating. It wasn't like that in the past.
There's an interesting phenomenon connected to this:
http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html
http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html
Is it? iwea.com is perfectly legitimate albeit niche with a valid https cert.
Doesn't this feature just push brave further down a route of acting as curators of a private version of the web, favouring larger (or partnered) websites?
Doesn't this feature just push brave further down a route of acting as curators of a private version of the web, favouring larger (or partnered) websites?
I see your point. It's obviously legitimate and a false positive in this case, but you do have a very clear option to ignore and proceed if you went there with intent, so it doesn't actually really get in your way if you did mean to go to the article. It's not hidden away like with the ssl cert warning.
Saying this is curating or favouring certain websites I think is a very big leap. The intent is obviously to prevent typo injection/phishing attacks which are very much used in the wild, and I think it's likely to do overwhelmingly more good than harm because there are, I'd assume, far more instances of that than edge cases of domains which are very similar to known brand names.
Saying this is curating or favouring certain websites I think is a very big leap. The intent is obviously to prevent typo injection/phishing attacks which are very much used in the wild, and I think it's likely to do overwhelmingly more good than harm because there are, I'd assume, far more instances of that than edge cases of domains which are very similar to known brand names.
At least one well known Ad Blocker went down this exact same dark path before
Hey, for $$$ we'll make sure your customer don't get "lost" and go visit similar sites that are illegitimate (ie. don't pay us). What's that? Our algorithm says your site wasn't legitimate but your rival's site is? Well we can look into that for you but meanwhile try paying us $$$ and you'll be amazed at the results...
Unsurprisingly their "customers" didn't like this very much, but the AAA video games industry has learned if you do something awful, get smacked, apologise, then immediately do it again, you wear people down. The tenth time they just can't muster as much anger. "Yeah, yeah, it's just normal for companies to treat me like shit, I guess I put up with it".
Hey, for $$$ we'll make sure your customer don't get "lost" and go visit similar sites that are illegitimate (ie. don't pay us). What's that? Our algorithm says your site wasn't legitimate but your rival's site is? Well we can look into that for you but meanwhile try paying us $$$ and you'll be amazed at the results...
Unsurprisingly their "customers" didn't like this very much, but the AAA video games industry has learned if you do something awful, get smacked, apologise, then immediately do it again, you wear people down. The tenth time they just can't muster as much anger. "Yeah, yeah, it's just normal for companies to treat me like shit, I guess I put up with it".
sure, and if if the algorithm was publicly documented and focused on plishing (site structure, visual similarities), I'd be far less concerned about future manipulation. Gatekeeping like this is a very powerful tool.
FWIW in the general keyboard use case the letter K isn't even typo-able to W with the same typing hand!!
FWIW in the general keyboard use case the letter K isn't even typo-able to W with the same typing hand!!
It's not that I disagree with either you or the sibling comment, it has some potential for abuse, I just don't see it as likely - I mean what manipulation could happen here?
If they starting suggesting I meant 'facebook.com' when I go to 'twitter.com' then I'm going to immediately stop using the product and I think most people would too. I just don't see how many near-miss cases there could be where this could be genuinely abused. It's just an attempt to help people who will and do get fooled by similar-looking domain names in phishing attacks.
This is an example of that. Obviously in this case it's not a typo attack - as you rightly point out the keys are typically too far apart - it's a potential phishing attack of the variety 'here click this link to re-enter your credit card details for your recent Ikea order, as our system lost them' hoping the user doesn't really look properly at the url bar and gets fooled.
If they starting suggesting I meant 'facebook.com' when I go to 'twitter.com' then I'm going to immediately stop using the product and I think most people would too. I just don't see how many near-miss cases there could be where this could be genuinely abused. It's just an attempt to help people who will and do get fooled by similar-looking domain names in phishing attacks.
This is an example of that. Obviously in this case it's not a typo attack - as you rightly point out the keys are typically too far apart - it's a potential phishing attack of the variety 'here click this link to re-enter your credit card details for your recent Ikea order, as our system lost them' hoping the user doesn't really look properly at the url bar and gets fooled.
Ireland has ~10GW generation capacity (mostly coal & extra dirty peat).
At around $1/W for new solar and wind generation, the Apple back taxes owned to Ireland can convert the entire Island to renewable energy. It will be an asset that generates income for 30 years.
(yes, ok, more storage needed, and interconnect to the UK, and keep some gas as backup ..)
At around $1/W for new solar and wind generation, the Apple back taxes owned to Ireland can convert the entire Island to renewable energy. It will be an asset that generates income for 30 years.
(yes, ok, more storage needed, and interconnect to the UK, and keep some gas as backup ..)
What exactly does this figure mean? I see in Wikipedia this interesting line: "Ireland's instantaneous wind power generation fluctuates between near zero and 3,071 MW[1] due to weather,[6] with an average capacity factor of 32.3% in 2015."
Can someone unpack that? What precisely is an average capacity factor?
Can someone unpack that? What precisely is an average capacity factor?
If a wind turbine of 2MW (of "capacity" or "max load") produces 5256 MWh in 1y, the average load (or yield) is 5256 MWh / 365 days / 24 hours / 2 MW = 0.3
Some day it will be near 0 (0% efficiency), or near 0.9 (90% efficiency). It depend on weather conditions.
Some day it will be near 0 (0% efficiency), or near 0.9 (90% efficiency). It depend on weather conditions.
To add to the useful technical descriptions people have given, here are some real world types of power plant to consider with typical capacity factors and explanations:
A real world fusion power plant ("nuclear") basically runs as close as they can to 100% flat out 24/7 so their capacity factor is the fraction of the time their plant is not undergoing maintenance, refuelling or other disruptions. They might have a 95% capacity factor. They do this because their fuel (e.g. uranium) is so cheap compared to the cost of owning a power plant that it always makes sense to make electricity at any price.
An old-fashioned coal plant uses relatively expensive fuel, coal, which somebody has to be paid a lot of money to dig out of the ground and transport to them. It also costs money to clean the smoke from the plant so that it's less toxic as required by environmental laws in most places. Their plant could achieve nearly the same ratios as the fusion plant, but it would only make sense to do that if electricity was very expensive - when prices are low the plant idles, since running it would cost more than you'd earn selling electricity. As a result capacity factor might be 10% or lower at an older coal plant. This is why nobody (to a first approximation) is building new ones.
The photovoltaic solar plant produces "free" electricity when the sun shines. It's fairly low maintenance, and so basically you get a capacity factor that depends almost directly on how much the sun shines. When it's cloudy or the sun is low in the sky it produces much less power, at night it produces nothing. Capacity factor for such a plant may be about 20%.
Electricity from a Wind turbine is also nearly free. Sometimes it runs at night, but it's even less predictable. July is always good for PV panels in the North, but this July might bring a whole month of calm winds or several epic storms for the wind turbines and we've no way to know. Capacity factors for a particular turbine depend on location a lot, but 30% as here would be fairly typical.
Modern Combined Cycle Gas turbines again could hit a fairly high capacity factor, but since operating them is far from free (gas is cheaper than coal, but not THAT much cheaper) they are used to make up the difference between demand and cheap supply because they can be "spun up" quickly and you can quickly build as many as your country needs if you have a way to feed them gas. So in practice you might see 50% capacity factor but that could fall a lot if storage (for the cheaper renewals and fusion) undercuts it.
A real world fusion power plant ("nuclear") basically runs as close as they can to 100% flat out 24/7 so their capacity factor is the fraction of the time their plant is not undergoing maintenance, refuelling or other disruptions. They might have a 95% capacity factor. They do this because their fuel (e.g. uranium) is so cheap compared to the cost of owning a power plant that it always makes sense to make electricity at any price.
An old-fashioned coal plant uses relatively expensive fuel, coal, which somebody has to be paid a lot of money to dig out of the ground and transport to them. It also costs money to clean the smoke from the plant so that it's less toxic as required by environmental laws in most places. Their plant could achieve nearly the same ratios as the fusion plant, but it would only make sense to do that if electricity was very expensive - when prices are low the plant idles, since running it would cost more than you'd earn selling electricity. As a result capacity factor might be 10% or lower at an older coal plant. This is why nobody (to a first approximation) is building new ones.
The photovoltaic solar plant produces "free" electricity when the sun shines. It's fairly low maintenance, and so basically you get a capacity factor that depends almost directly on how much the sun shines. When it's cloudy or the sun is low in the sky it produces much less power, at night it produces nothing. Capacity factor for such a plant may be about 20%.
Electricity from a Wind turbine is also nearly free. Sometimes it runs at night, but it's even less predictable. July is always good for PV panels in the North, but this July might bring a whole month of calm winds or several epic storms for the wind turbines and we've no way to know. Capacity factors for a particular turbine depend on location a lot, but 30% as here would be fairly typical.
Modern Combined Cycle Gas turbines again could hit a fairly high capacity factor, but since operating them is far from free (gas is cheaper than coal, but not THAT much cheaper) they are used to make up the difference between demand and cheap supply because they can be "spun up" quickly and you can quickly build as many as your country needs if you have a way to feed them gas. So in practice you might see 50% capacity factor but that could fall a lot if storage (for the cheaper renewals and fusion) undercuts it.
Thank you for the excellent explainer. A minor nitpick:
>A real world fusion power plant ("nuclear")
Certainly you meant to write fission power plant (splitting of heavy nuclei) as the real world nuclear we're presently using.
However, the point will probably also stand for the future fusion (combining light nuclei) power plants. Presuming we'll run them mostly with the cheap hydrogen for fuel (as opposed to the expensive deuterium), and presuming the operations will not require frequent, expensive maintenance.
>A real world fusion power plant ("nuclear")
Certainly you meant to write fission power plant (splitting of heavy nuclei) as the real world nuclear we're presently using.
However, the point will probably also stand for the future fusion (combining light nuclei) power plants. Presuming we'll run them mostly with the cheap hydrogen for fuel (as opposed to the expensive deuterium), and presuming the operations will not require frequent, expensive maintenance.
Yes, wow that was dumb. Too late to edit now, sorry.
Your magic 1 hour per day powerplant is rated at 1000W. It produces all energy at midnight for one hour. If you had infinite energy storage and distributed the energy across all 24 hours you could produce 42W every hour. 42W divided by the rated production capacity (1000W) is 4.2% which is the average capacity factor. It is useful because renewables don't generate as much as is written on their nameplate. A 1kW solar panel does not generate power all day and we have to account for that.
Quote: The net capacity factor is the unitless ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over that period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
All produced energy spread equally over the whole year it was produced it. It's nothing deceiving if you were suspecting that.
Wind turbines are destroying the landscape
The great thing about wind turbines (and solar panels) is that when/if they are decommissioned, the impact to the original landscape is minimal.
I for one am happy to look out to wind turbines - and lets not forget that many of the most productive wind farms are now out to sea.
I for one am happy to look out to wind turbines - and lets not forget that many of the most productive wind farms are now out to sea.
In the 19th century the chimneys of the factories where modern, "beautiful" and a sign of progress.
Turned out that what came out of those chimneys was not so great.
How destructive compared to removing mountains to reach the coal, compared to strip-mining the peat, or compared to the sea level rises from CO2 induced climate change?
Personally I think the offshore arrays are beautiful.
Unfortunately that does not solve anything.
This is because the amount generated varies between 0 and the max. installed capacity at any time, depending on the weather.
This means that in practice the grid must still assume 0 in order to avoid blackouts. It does not mean that other sources can be wound down because wind produces 37% of electricity needs.
This is because the amount generated varies between 0 and the max. installed capacity at any time, depending on the weather.
This means that in practice the grid must still assume 0 in order to avoid blackouts. It does not mean that other sources can be wound down because wind produces 37% of electricity needs.
> This means that in practice the grid must still assume 0 in order to avoid blackouts. It does not mean that other sources can be wound down because wind produces 37% of electricity needs.
On any electric grid, production must always be precisely matched to consumption; producing more than is consumed results in the voltage and/or frequency becoming too high, with destructive results. Therefore, the grid cannot "assume 0"; it must reduce production until it matches the instantaneous consumption.
For obvious reasons, grid operators prefer to reduce the most expensive sources first, which are usually the fossil fuel thermal plants. So in practice, for every kW of wind-generated power, one less kW of fossil fuel electricity is generated; and due to how thermal power plants work, the easiest way to reduce generation is to burn less fuel.
On any electric grid, production must always be precisely matched to consumption; producing more than is consumed results in the voltage and/or frequency becoming too high, with destructive results. Therefore, the grid cannot "assume 0"; it must reduce production until it matches the instantaneous consumption.
For obvious reasons, grid operators prefer to reduce the most expensive sources first, which are usually the fossil fuel thermal plants. So in practice, for every kW of wind-generated power, one less kW of fossil fuel electricity is generated; and due to how thermal power plants work, the easiest way to reduce generation is to burn less fuel.
You misunderstood. The grid must still be dimensioned in terms of production capacity as if wind power did not exist.
It is great we focus on renewable production and I feel it is what we should do at the stage we are.
However there is often no word on the fossil consumption for producing, transporting and installing the huge wind machines.
I guess that "grey" energy should be deducted from the yearly renewable production per windmill with a formula like [mill construction fossil energy]/[average life of the windmill in years].
Showing such digits: 1) would discard projects that have a global negative renewable impact (when considering construction). 2) is a critical incentive to decrease the fossil footprint in renewable installation constructions (wind / sun / hydro...).
Indeed there is a possibility to fuel the industries and trucks with see-water and green-electricity produced hydrogen... But it costs more than petrol and no one can be competitive in such effort if it is not valued to the public by fossil-use transparency and advertisement.
However there is often no word on the fossil consumption for producing, transporting and installing the huge wind machines.
I guess that "grey" energy should be deducted from the yearly renewable production per windmill with a formula like [mill construction fossil energy]/[average life of the windmill in years].
Showing such digits: 1) would discard projects that have a global negative renewable impact (when considering construction). 2) is a critical incentive to decrease the fossil footprint in renewable installation constructions (wind / sun / hydro...).
Indeed there is a possibility to fuel the industries and trucks with see-water and green-electricity produced hydrogen... But it costs more than petrol and no one can be competitive in such effort if it is not valued to the public by fossil-use transparency and advertisement.
>However there is often no word on the fossil consumption for producing, transporting and installing the huge wind machines.
There is plenty of research into this. Some terms you can use are "life cycle assessment" and "energy returned on energy invested."
There is plenty of research into this. Some terms you can use are "life cycle assessment" and "energy returned on energy invested."
There's a Fully Charged episode on Youtube that looked into this. Hammer's Hill Wind Farm on Orkney paid off their installation and construction CO2 debt in the first 45 days of operation. Despite there being 500 tons of concrete and steel in each base.
https://youtu.be/FXe1hBvlylw?t=87
https://youtu.be/FXe1hBvlylw?t=87
The problem of the "pay back" is that the CO2 they emit is still in the air: the mill does not absorb CO2.
In addition there are different ways to compute a "pay back":
- you may compare the e-kWh production and the fossil-kWh spent to build... Certainly pointless but useful to display short "pay back" durations.
- you may compare your electricity production with the production of the nearby fossil-plant that you pretend to avoid... More realistic, but your project will have different "pay back" depending on the neighborhood you consider (immediate neighbor, regional mix, national mix...).
I can understand such computations in the transition stage where we are, but in the end, each project should be considered for its own [electricity production]/[fossil emissions] ratio across its construction and lifespan.
In addition there are different ways to compute a "pay back":
- you may compare the e-kWh production and the fossil-kWh spent to build... Certainly pointless but useful to display short "pay back" durations.
- you may compare your electricity production with the production of the nearby fossil-plant that you pretend to avoid... More realistic, but your project will have different "pay back" depending on the neighborhood you consider (immediate neighbor, regional mix, national mix...).
I can understand such computations in the transition stage where we are, but in the end, each project should be considered for its own [electricity production]/[fossil emissions] ratio across its construction and lifespan.
As we can't go from polluting forms of generation to more neutral sources without building and replacing... Yet it's still worth doing if that will produce lower emissions going forward compared to simply carrying on with the local coal or gas plant.
Doesn't imply this is merely greenwashing, just a small step on route to zero emissions. Where I want to see more significant and far-reaching progress.
To the general point I agree. I'd far prefer to see full impact required for each project, and overall, as well as labelling showing impact of the things we buy - food, consumer goods, vehicles etc, including all those hidden externalities.
Doesn't imply this is merely greenwashing, just a small step on route to zero emissions. Where I want to see more significant and far-reaching progress.
To the general point I agree. I'd far prefer to see full impact required for each project, and overall, as well as labelling showing impact of the things we buy - food, consumer goods, vehicles etc, including all those hidden externalities.
> However there is often no word on the fossil consumption for producing, transporting and installing the huge wind machines.
I assume those "grey" costs would also apply for any other energy source. You always need some kind of plant where you eventually produce and distribute the electricity.
I assume those "grey" costs would also apply for any other energy source. You always need some kind of plant where you eventually produce and distribute the electricity.
Yes I agree, and it should be counted everywhere.
What you are talking about is called "Life cycle inventory analysis" of and is of course counted in the carbon footprint of a given technology, yes.
Manufacturing energy costs are especially important for solar, which requires important amounts of energy for silicon purification and "monocrystallinization" (there must be a more adequate word). Wind power manufacturing costs are on par with other technologies.
Manufacturing energy costs are especially important for solar, which requires important amounts of energy for silicon purification and "monocrystallinization" (there must be a more adequate word). Wind power manufacturing costs are on par with other technologies.
Its actually very complicated matter to count [1]. But if you look into winds "carbon footprint" you should find it is widely regarded as having one of the lowest overall emissions, about 1-2% of natural gas generations footprint.
[1] https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1461/main_report_-_l...
[1] https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1461/main_report_-_l...
Dispatched down means that potential generation is turned off. Amazing that so much energy was 'wasted' - I look forward to seeing the storage/use solutions that come about to take advantage or this 'free' energy and turn it into something useful.
To put this into context this is about €13.4 million worth of electricity - if it were able to be sold at a standard Eire market rate.
But while the standard wholesale MWh rate in the Eire is about €67, the instant dispatch rate in Ireland can reach €4000 - so if all that energy could be made available for instant dispatch it could be worth €800000000 - if my sums are correct. Obviously this is ignoring losses. But even with 50% loss this is a significant opportunity. Who is in?
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/price-spikes-ir...