News Intel concerned about Irish energy costs says report — wants gov to subsidize renewables

[helper800]

For Cali it didn't look that bad to me. I figure we will all be paying for upgrades to a power system that can either survive high winds and storm or at least fail without causing a fire. Smart grid ect...

Almost 3/4ths of the bill was delivery charges before adding the baseline credits for delivery. That means I am being charged more for the infrastructure than the actual power usage. Of the amount charged, excluding tax, but with the "baseline discount" included, about two thirds of my bill was for the "delivery" of the power... The power I was charged to generate was 44.74 total.

 

[Pyranna87]

Energy prices are high in Europe because we signed up and followed the green treaties etc and has cost us , while the rest of the world couldn't give a rats backside and continue to pump of pollution at a fraction of the price. Do you believe China will go green if it will help destroy their economy like it has in the UK, from a bunch of green zealot amateur crackpot affluent elitist Liebour politicians !

High energy prices in Europe are a bit more complex than that. For one, the fact that our unit prices are tied to the most expensive source. So even on a day when 100% of power is provided by wind/solar we still pay the gas price. It isn't green politics to blame there, that's the fossil fuel/energy lobbyists.

Then you have Russia's war in Ukraine and the disruption to gas supplies because of sanctions. So gas prices have risen and even though more of our power is provided from sustainable sources than ever, we are still paying higher prices because every unit of power is sold as if it was made using expensive gas.

 

[helper800]

High energy prices in Europe are a bit more complex than that. For one, the fact that our unit prices are tied to the most expensive source. So even on a day when 100% of power is provided by wind/solar we still pay the gas price. It isn't green politics to blame there, that's the fossil fuel/energy lobbyists.

Then you have Russia's war in Ukraine and the disruption to gas supplies because of sanctions. So gas prices have risen and even though more of our power is provided from sustainable sources than ever, we are still paying higher prices because every unit of power is sold as if it was made using expensive gas.

In Germany specifically, they closed all or most of their nuclear power plants as well which was a mistake. We need nuclear power proliferation, not the dismantling of the entire industry...

 

[Pyranna87]

In Germany specifically, they closed all or most of their nuclear power plants as well which was a mistake. We need nuclear power proliferation, not the dismantling of the entire industry...

Germany started to shut down their nuclear reactors as a knee jerk reaction to Fukishima, they decided the risks of nuclear were too great. They replaced em with gas generators and pipelines from Russia, it had nothing to do with going green... quite the opposite.

Maybe if Germany leaned hard into renewables instead of building gas pipelines to Russia they might not be in the situation they're in right now.

 

[helper800]

Germany started to shut down their nuclear reactors as a knee jerk reaction to Fukishima, they decided the risks of nuclear were too great. They replaced em with gas generators and pipelines from Russia, it had nothing to do with going green... quite the opposite.

Maybe if Germany leaned hard into renewables instead of building gas pipelines to Russia they might not be in the situation they're in right now.

Renewables alone cannot power a country unless you consider nuclear a renewable. There are not enough waves, geothermal, wind, solar, or batteries that will get a country through multiple 24 hour power cycles currently. Germany certainly did decommission their nuclear reactors in part because of the Fukushima disaster, however, many of the rationalizations given alongside that disaster were that nuclear was not renewable or green, which are both misconceptions.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Germany started to shut down their nuclear reactors as a knee jerk reaction to Fukishima, they decided the risks of nuclear were too great. They replaced em with gas generators and pipelines from Russia, it had nothing to do with going green... quite the opposite.

Maybe if Germany leaned hard into renewables instead of building gas pipelines to Russia they might not be in the situation they're in right now.

Germany started to shut down their reactors in the 80’s after Chernobyl, Fukushima was just the last nail in the coffin.

 

[bit_user]

Renewables alone cannot power a country alone unless you consider nuclear a renewable. There are not enough waves, geothermal, wind, solar, or batteries that will get a country through multiple 24 hour power cycles currently.

That's highly-dependent on the country. Ecuador has been almost totally powered by renewables, when they're not experiencing droughts, due to harnessing their normally abundant rainfall and mountainous terrain via hydroelectric power.

Off-shore wind is another power source that's nearly 24/7, if you aggregate it over a large enough region. There are even certain locations where the wind is pretty much always blowing at a decent strength.

In near equatorial regions with lots of sunlight, it's possible to be entirely solar powered. Germany actually has lots of solar power, but it's not the most sunny place and it's located pretty far north. I've heard a much higher proportion of their power is from renewables than the US. I'm pretty sure they were even one of the leading users of renewables in Europe, at one point.

 

[helper800]

That's highly-dependent on the country. Ecuador has been almost totally powered by renewables, when they're not experiencing droughts, due to harnessing their normally abundant rainfall and mountainous terrain via hydroelectric power.

Off-shore wind is another power source that's nearly 24/7, if you aggregate it over a large enough region. There are even certain locations where the wind is pretty much always blowing at a decent strength.

In near equatorial regions with lots of sunlight, it's possible to be entirely solar powered. Germany actually has lots of solar power, but it's not the most sunny place and it's located pretty far north. I've heard a much higher proportion of their power is from renewables than the US. I'm pretty sure they were even one of the leading users of renewables in Europe, at one point.

I should rephrase my claim. There are very few countries that have have achieved this, and none of them are in countries that are first world in the sense of power usage. I do not believe there is enough area in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that get these sustained winds such that all countries could place wind turbines to keep up with their current power needs, let alone if they consumed power at a rate of the average 1st world country. I also completely forgot to add hydroelectric dams. I don't know how that skipped my mind. if transmission of power were 100% efficient and we used the best solar panels available we would have to place an amount of them that covers the entire area of New Mexico and have a 24h sun cycle...

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

I should rephrase my claim. There are very few countries that have have achieved this, and none of them are in countries that are first world in the sense of power usage. I do not believe there is enough area in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that get these sustained winds such that all countries could place wind turbines to keep up with their current power needs, let alone if they consumed power at a rate of the average 1st world country. I also completely forgot to add hydroelectric dams. I don't know how that skipped my mind. if transmission of power were 100% efficient and we used the best solar panels available we would have to place an amount of them that covers the entire area of New Mexico and have a 24h sun cycle...

The problem with off-shore wind turbines is that they transfer low frequency noise into the water that drives whales mad to the point that they beach themselves to get away from the sound. Whale beachings are up from 10 a year on average in New Jersey to over 30 in 2023. And given the increased boat traffic to construct and service these off-shore wind farms, the number of whale deaths due to accidental boat ramming incidents is up 48%.
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...5609463637/EP_SRW_report_FINAL+2023-11-30.pdf

 

[Co BIY]

High energy prices in Europe are a bit more complex than that. For one, the fact that our unit prices are tied to the most expensive source. So even on a day when 100% of power is provided by wind/solar we still pay the gas price. It isn't green politics to blame there, that's the fossil fuel/energy lobbyists.

Then you have Russia's war in Ukraine and the disruption to gas supplies because of sanctions. So gas prices have risen and even though more of our power is provided from sustainable sources than ever, we are still paying higher prices because every unit of power is sold as if it was made using expensive gas.

Wind power cannot work as a baseline power source. Coal , gas and nuclear (hydro if you have it) are your options. Even if you have wind power potential with 100% (or more ) of the average demand the system will require baseline generation to take over when it drops off for lack of wind. Solar is less extreme except for the whole night thing. Unfortunately the unreliability of wind and solar stack more than offset each other since wind also often drops at night.

Until practical storage is created that will remain the case.

 

[bit_user]

I do not believe there is enough area in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that get these sustained winds such that all countries could place wind turbines to keep up with their current power needs,

Where do you get this info?

if transmission of power were 100% efficient and we used the best solar panels available we would have to place an amount of them that covers the entire area of New Mexico and have a 24h sun cycle...

Being a numbers guy, did you ever check the math on that? The Wikipedia page on solar efficiency gives an example of Central Colorado (not far from NM), which receives annual insolation of 2000 kWh/m2/year. So, a m^2 panel with 20% efficiency is good for 400 kWh/year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency
​

NM has an area of 315 * 10^3 km^2, which translates to 315 * 10^9 m^2. At the above insolation rate and efficiency, that's 126 * 10^15 Wh/year of energy. The IAEA says global electricity consumption in 2019 was 22,848 TWh (22.8 * 10^15 Wh).

https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-information-overview/electricity-consumption
​

So, it seems to me that using standard PV cells and realistic insolation rates, covering NM with modern solar panels would yield 5.5 times that amount of energy.

A while back, I heard that perfectly harnessing the solar energy reaching the Gobi desert was like 800 times the world's electricity needs. For that to be true, my math says it'd need an insolation rate 7 times as high as central Colorado, which seems a bit unrealistic. So, maybe just a couple hundred times. Then again, the stat is old enough that maybe global electricity usage was quite a bit lower, at the time someone computed it.

 

[bit_user]

The problem with off-shore wind turbines is that they transfer low frequency noise into the water that drives whales mad to the point that they beach themselves to get away from the sound. Whale beachings are up from 10 a year on average in New Jersey to over 30 in 2023. And given the increased boat traffic to construct and service these off-shore wind farms, the number of whale deaths due to accidental boat ramming incidents is up 48%.
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...5609463637/EP_SRW_report_FINAL+2023-11-30.pdf

Oh, well if you try a thing and encounter problems, never ever do that thing again. If electric lights cause a fire, it just proves that electric lighting is a bad idea and we should never use them again. If a nuclear reactor has a melt down, then all nuclear plants should be immediately closed. If radiation gives someone cancer, then it should never be tinkered with.

Not.

The way technology improves is by understanding the downsides and using sound engineering practices to mitigate or eliminate them. For instance:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019057820303694
​

FWIW, I didn't find much in the way of peer-reviewed research on impacts of wind turbines on whales, but this study claims the main risk to their hearing is during the construction phase.

https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v309/p279-295
​

BTW, there's a network of acoustic sensors being developed for detecting whale presence, which can inform ship traffic and windfarm construction schedules.

https://whalemap.org/

 

[bit_user]

Even if you have wind power potential with 100% (or more ) of the average demand the system will require baseline generation to take over when it drops off for lack of wind.

Over a large enough area, like a swath of the US eastern seaboard, the wind is always blowing. If your grid spans enough area, it actually can be used as baseline power.

That said, I think it wouldn't work as the exclusive power source for the US eastern seaboard, but the baseline potential is there.

 

[helper800]

Where do you get this info?


Being a numbers guy, did you ever check the math on that? The Wikipedia page on solar efficiency gives an example of Central Colorado (not far from NM), which receives annual insolation of 2000 kWh/m2/year. So, a m^2 panel with 20% efficiency is good for 400 kWh/year.

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency​

​

NM has an area of 315 * 10^3 km^2, which translates to 315 * 10^9 m^2. At the above insolation rate and efficiency, that's 126 * 10^15 Wh/year of energy. The IAEA says global electricity consumption in 2019 was 22,848 TWh (22.8 * 10^15 Wh).

​

https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-information-overview/electricity-consumption​

​

So, it seems to me that using standard PV cells and realistic insolation rates, covering NM with modern solar panels would yield 5.5 times that amount of energy.

A while back, I heard that perfectly harnessing the solar energy reaching the Gobi desert was like 800 times the world's electricity needs. For that to be true, my math says it'd need an insolation rate 7 times as high as central Colorado, which seems a bit unrealistic. So, maybe just a couple hundred times. Then again, the stat is old enough that maybe global electricity usage was quite a bit lower, at the time someone computed it.

I did quick napkin math and it seems to be some orders of magnitude off for NM's ability to generate solar power compared to yours. My assumptions were: 75k square miles of land, 640 acres = 1 sq mile, 1 acre has 4840 yards^2, one yard^2 panel = 200 kWh per year of energy. 75k sq miles = 232.32B yards^2. 200 kWh per year * 232.32b yards^2 = 4.6 tWh per year. USA uses ~4 tWh of energy per year.

I got my math wrong by missing a decimal place on the produced power (copy and pasted the true number minus a 0 at the end). NM is apparently ~121k sq miles in area. Solar panels in NM are more effective that I thought by two times. I was trying to do this all on my phone and in my head in a waiting room, so I will use that as my excuse. 😂

 

[Co BIY]

Over a large enough area, like a swath of the US eastern seaboard, the wind is always blowing. If your grid spans enough area, it actually can be used as baseline power.

That said, I think it wouldn't work as the exclusive power source for the US eastern seaboard, but the baseline potential is there.

How much installed capacity and related transmission capacity would that take ? 500% - 1000%.

 

[bit_user]

How much installed capacity and related transmission capacity would that take ? 500% - 1000%.

Sorry, this isn't my area of expertise, but it's what I've heard the experts say.

As long as it's cost-effective, people are going to keep building wind turbines. I guess there's now a ban on new off-shore wind permits in the US, which just shows that it was profitable or all you'd have to do is just cancel any subsidies (which I'm sure also happened).

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Oh, well if you try a thing and encounter problems, never ever do that thing again. If electric lights cause a fire, it just proves that electric lighting is a bad idea and we should never use them again. If a nuclear reactor has a melt down, then all nuclear plants should be immediately closed. If radiation gives someone cancer, then it should never be tinkered with.

Not.

The way technology improves is by understanding the downsides and using sound engineering practices to mitigate or eliminate them. For instance:

​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019057820303694​

​

FWIW, I didn't find much in the way of peer-reviewed research on impacts of wind turbines on whales, but this study claims the main risk to their hearing is during the construction phase.

​

https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v309/p279-295​

​

BTW, there's a network of acoustic sensors being developed for detecting whale presence, which can inform ship traffic and windfarm construction schedules.

​

https://whalemap.org/

​

I have no doubt we will have the ability to mitigate, but I was simply pointing out current problems. And we’ve known about the bird killing problem with wind turbines for a long time now yet nothing has been done about it yet, so the better question is: will these mitigations to reduce offshore wind turbine impact on wildlife actually be implemented? We will see.

BTW, thanks for linking those articles, I enjoyed them!

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Over a large enough area, like a swath of the US eastern seaboard, the wind is always blowing. If your grid spans enough area, it actually can be used as baseline power.

That said, I think it wouldn't work as the exclusive power source for the US eastern seaboard, but the baseline potential is there.

The other main drawback of wind turbines is the opposite of no wind, wind above a certain speed will trigger a safety mechanism that uncouples the blades from the generator and drivetrain to prevent damage. Having wind be a baseline source is just not realistic unless we convince Mother Nature to cooperate or we invent a way to make giant turbines able to spin faster without chunkifying their internals.
https://xray.greyb.com/wind-turbines/prevent-overspeeding-in-wind-turbines

 

[bit_user]

I have no doubt we will have the ability to mitigate, but I was simply pointing out current problems.

Okay, that's fair, but I mean did you even look to see if anyone was doing anything about it?

And we’ve known about the bird killing problem with wind turbines for a long time now yet nothing has been done about it yet,

Again, being a smart and resourceful individual, I can only assume you think that because you didn't bother to look.

The main problem with wind turbines and birds occurs when they're placed in migratory hot spots. It's not every wind turbine. In those cases, a smart detection & mitigation system has been developed and deployed that seems remarkably effective.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240425-these-tricks-made-wind-farms-more-bird-friendly
​

I've also heard about more bird-friendly turbine designs, though I don't know the status of such efforts.

The other main drawback of wind turbines is the opposite of no wind, wind above a certain speed will trigger a safety mechanism that uncouples the blades from the generator and drivetrain to prevent damage.

But what percentage of the time does that actually happen? If it's just a small % that you're missing out on, then maybe it's not worth trying to optimize.


P.S. I don't care a whole lot about wind power. Like hydro power, it's good for when it makes sense and because there are lots of places and times of year where solar isn't particularly viable. But, the main way forward is clearly with solar + storage or nuclear. Those are the only technologies that can scale adequately to meet the need.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Okay, that's fair, but I mean did you even look to see if anyone was doing anything about it?


Again, being a smart and resourceful individual, I can only assume you think that because you didn't bother to look.

The main problem with wind turbines and birds occurs when they're placed in migratory hot spots. It's not every wind turbine. In those cases, a smart detection & mitigation system has been developed and deployed that seems remarkably effective.

​

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240425-these-tricks-made-wind-farms-more-bird-friendly​

​

I've also heard about more bird-friendly turbine designs, though I don't know the status of such efforts.


But what percentage of the time does that actually happen? If it's just a small % that you're missing out on, then maybe it's not worth trying to optimize.


P.S. I don't care a whole lot about wind power. Like hydro power, it's good for when it makes sense and because there are lots of places and times of year where solar isn't particularly viable. But, the main way forward is clearly with solar + storage or nuclear. Those are the only technologies that can scale adequately to meet the need.

In my experience, there will always be bleeding hearts that create magnificent breakthroughs to tackle drawbacks of current systems, however always have drawbacks of their own, and given our capitalist society, these solutions have to make economic sense to deploy, which is why we generally never see these efforts come to fruition. For example, these bird friendly designs are more costly to deploy and produce electricity at lower efficiency compared to the current type, so I’m giving them a 40-60% chance of being adopted without some executive order or EPA re-interpretation of their existing congress-approved authority interpretation.

I guess our main difference in opinion stems from our differing belief in people’s greed guiding their decisions. I surmise that industries will not change unless non-market forces make the change a requirement of continuing to do business.

I respect your positions on this, don’t get me wrong, but we can have debates without left handed compliments like “being a smart and resourceful individual…”

In my opinion, nuclear is the only baseline forward…anything with dependent variables out of our control are not worth investing in for baseline. I’m all for shoring up on renewable energy production to replace baseline whenever the dependent variables permit, but baseline necessitates being smart about what we choose…and that means thinking of worst case and choosing the energy production type that would continue producing regardless of climatic condition. That means wind, solar, and hydro are ruled out. So only nuclear, and geothermal remain. Except geothermal is limited to certain areas, so nuclear (both fission and fusion in the future) is the only universally applicable energy production type suitable for baseline.

 

[bit_user]

we can have debates without left handed compliments like “being a smart and resourceful individual…”

That was utterly sincere. Honest!

The subtext was that you're more than capable of going the full distance, but you went only half way. You saw only as much as you wanted to see, but were obviously capable of going further.

baseline necessitates being smart about what we choose…and that means thinking of worst case and choosing the energy production type that would continue producing regardless of climatic condition.

Baseline isn't about eliminating everything without a 100% duty cycle. Even if solar + storage or large-scale wind can only provide a worst case of 20% of peak, it's not zero. And that amount is enough to reduce how much of another power source you need for baseline.

Also, solar is great for hot climates, precisely because it peaks in the daytime, more or less coinciding with need for air conditioning. I know A/C is skewed a bit later, but if you actually ran your A/C at full blast during the hottest part of the day, it would lessen the amount you need to run it later.

IMO, if AI or quantum computers can find a cheap, eco-friendly battery technology to solve the solar storage problem (even if the batteries have some properties that make them sub-optimal for cars or electronics), that could be the game changer needed to really unleash solar as a (mostly) baseline source for everywhere from the equator to middle latitudes. The one thing that sets apart solar from the rest of the renewables is that it can scale to meet the need. Wind cannot - it can only ever be a partial solution (which still isn't an argument not to use it where it makes sense).