4 ms·

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

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

talideon 7y ago
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.
- ElKrist 7y ago
  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
  - talideon 7y ago
    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
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
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.
ben_w 7y ago
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.
- jabl 7y ago
  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.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    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.
    - jabl 7y ago
      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.
- ElKrist 7y ago
  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-coal-fired-power-us-example/ https://www.carbontracker.org/understanding-operating-cost-c...
  - ben_w 7y ago

talideon 7y ago

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.

ElKrist 7y ago
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
- talideon 7y ago
  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

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

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.

ben_w 7y ago

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.

jabl 7y ago
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.
- ben_w 7y ago
  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.
  - jabl 7y ago
    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.
ElKrist 7y ago
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-coal-fired-power-us-example/ https://www.carbontracker.org/understanding-operating-cost-c...
- ben_w 7y ago