Spirit of Ireland - A bright spark in today's economic gloom?

murphaph · 12-05-2009 11:26am

I thought waves were caused by wind, no? Do you mean tidal energy? That is highly predictable but not constant and I'm not sure we have too many very tidal waterways (Shannon estuary but where else with a strong tide?).

If the SoI have done nothing else they have focused some attention on ramping up the wind energy side of things. If we have to move people off their land and CPO it in order to site windfarms at the best (windiest) locations then so be it. If we could install enough windfarms to generate 100% of the demand in ideal conditions we could drastically reduce our dependence on oil for a start.

I think the SoI group may be on the wrong track when they say that the pumped storage aspect is the linchpin of the plan. The real benefit is in a masive ramp up of wind energy itself. We can then steadily reduce our demand for imported fosil fuels and leave gas (quickly fired up during times of peak demand and one of the cleaner fossil fuels) while we develop a single large MW nuclear site. If we go with the single nuclear plant plan, there's no real point in the pumped storage part of the plan because the nuclear plant (coupled with our existing hydro capacity) should be large enough to cover the quiet spells and flooding a load of valleys to create extra extra reserve seems senseless in that scenario.

The only way that flooding valleys on a large scale would be acceptable would be if it genuinely provided enough reserve for a realistically long quiet spell with not need for any other source of energy (particularly nuclear), and it's not at all clear that this is the case as SoI have released so little information at this stage.

I suspect we will in fact see nuclear generation in Ireland in my lifetime.

Sponge Bob · 12-05-2009 11:31am

I am surprised at Prof Walton ( long retired Prof Walton actually ) .

The proposal is to initially install 2 clusters of wind/pump of 1GW each .

I assume that to constantly 'deliver' 1GW out of a cluster ....say in Donegal ,...you will have overcapacity in that cluster of 2x or 3x meaning the rated power on the aggregate . It will be able to manage its own pumping in downtime . Different clusters may get asymettric grid priority meaning some clusters may need more stored water than others etc .

A 2 x 2km lake is proposed for an individual cluster of wind/pump and is designed to ensure that the 1GW is maintained of of that cluster ...eg the intermittence issue is nullified from that particular cluster .

When Prof said this bit below I thought whoOOOOa there Prof you is really losing it mate .

For pumped storage, reservoirs of a total area of 2km by 2km with a depth of 20m and a height of 250m above sea level are proposed. Using first-year college physics, one can calculate that this would only provide 5000MW of electricity for less than 11 hours; not very useful if we have calm weather for a week or more.

No ONE reservoir or cluster of reservoirs is proposed to deliver More than 1GW so by that measure it would do 55hours not 11hours .

He is aggregating where he should not and not aggregating where he should .

Bad Prof , write in another letter as punishment there willya .

Steviemak · 12-05-2009 12:28pm

murphaph wrote: »

I thought waves were caused by wind, no?

I'm no green energy expert by any means but i understood that the new wave technolgy techniques relied purely on the natural up and down motion of the sea. This as far as I understand never stops even in periods of no wind. I could be completely wrong!

murphaph · 12-05-2009 12:40pm

Steviemak wrote: »

I'm no green energy expert by any means but i understood that the new wave technolgy techniques relied purely on the natural up and down motion of the sea. This as far as I understand never stops even in periods of no wind. I could be completely wrong!

or you could be completely right. I know diddly-squat about it either. I didn't know the sea moved up and down apart from the tides. Maybe someone else here knows more on the subject.

Dan Jaman · 12-05-2009 1:16pm

Ray Kinsella wrote: "Nothing like this has been conceived before."

Utter crap. It's starting to look like this lot are claiming this is a brand new idea that nobody else ever thought up.

Cheeble · 12-05-2009 1:48pm

Steviemak wrote: »

I'm no green energy expert by any means but i understood that the new wave technolgy techniques relied purely on the natural up and down motion of the sea. This as far as I understand never stops even in periods of no wind. I could be completely wrong!

Stevie, I'm afraid you are (wrong). Waves (other than the occasional geologically indiced Tsunami) are generated by the wind. No wind, no waves. Tide on the other hand (the other natural up and down motion of the sea) is a gravitational effect and so therefore predictable and reliable.

Cheeble-eers

Steviemak · 12-05-2009 4:08pm

Cheeble wrote: »

Stevie, I'm afraid you are (wrong). Waves (other than the occasional geologically indiced Tsunami) are generated by the wind. No wind, no waves. Tide on the other hand (the other natural up and down motion of the sea) is a gravitational effect and so therefore predictable and reliable.

Cheeble-eers

Thanks, but I wasn't referring to actual waves just the motion of the sea. I have never seen the atlantic ocean as calm as a lake therefore I would guess that even on the calmest of days the water would still move up and down to a certain degree.

dowlingm · 12-05-2009 5:18pm

I agree with the scepticism re: timeframes and costs. This is not to say it can't/shouldn't be done but promises have to be realistic. Energy independence is a laudable goal economically and strategically but that doesn't mean we take any harebrained idea and run with it. To pretend that a project such as this can be financed and planned sufficiently to have an impact in five years seems to have little thought for, among other things, our obligations under EU environmental study laws. Instead, Spirit of Ireland would be one of several options which would be best employed in concert.

To flood the intended areas with sea water would likely have two effects. I disagree that coastal aquifers are already compromised and therefore potable groundwater contamination cannot be ruled out without hydrological studies. Secondly, the vegetation flooded would degenerate anaerobically leading to methane production - a greenhouse gas impact. This calculation has already forced rethinking of the GHG impact of dams like Three Gorges beyond the impact of the concrete pour and any excavation required.

It would also be a mistake to assume that remote communities will simply accept massive changes to their landscape "in the national interest". That's what the Government and Shell thought about Mayo, after all. There might be concern, founded or unfounded, in the zone between the dam and the sea about the possibility of catastrophic breach. On the other hand, reservoirs can be centres of recreational activity to bring non-technical spinoff economic benefits.

We should also plan for a higher peak/base electricity consumption figure than is currently the case, netted against a decrease in fossil fuels from progressive electrification of the rail network at least as far as Portlaoise, Drogheda and Mullingar* and the advent of plug-in hybrids and EVs.

Most progressive thinking on energy is to bring generation as near to consumption as possible. This has two effects - one, it reduces the need for long transmission lengths and associated costs, land takes, losses, blackouts due to breakdowns and electromagnetic field concerns. Two, adverse impacts from generation are an incentive for reduced consumption through improvements in efficiency and watchfulness against waste.

The notion that we rely to any basic degree on interconnection for critical need should not form the basis for an energy strategy. We cannot expect citizens of other EU countries to absorb the capital and environmental impact of our energy needs. Given the recent Russia-Ukraine spat over gas, our European partners have their own worries and must be expected to look after their own when the chips are down. Interconnectors should therefore be largely planned as a selling mechanism first and foremost.

What else can be done?

Job 1 must be a flexible power grid which encourages regional self-sufficiency and micropower
Expansion of solar water heating/preheating retrofits - more usable than solar photovoltaic in Irish latitudes.
Solar PV installations in areas where shade is useful or at least low impact, such as car parks, the tops of industrial buildings or along railway lines (keeps weeds down)
Biodigestion of organic waste including municipal, industrial and agricultural, with such plants located in the communities that produce the waste. Depending on scale and location the product could be district heating, power or both.
Examination of technology like thermal depolymerization to get value from plastics that cannot be recycled for economic or quality reasons, producing fuel oil and reducing landfill.
Smart meters in all Irish households allowing time-of-use billing and the ability to track consumption using a secure website, as is being rolled out here in Ontario. This will assist households in planning their power usage like dishwashers and clothes dryers to take advantage of cheaper baseload power during the nights and on weekends

* this is not a slam by omission against Wicklow but that line needs to be looked at in a long term context including coastal defence which might rule out short term electrification until a plan is agreed.

philad · 12-05-2009 6:22pm

What exists of plan here is hopelessly naive and even irresponsible.

A NUIG professor summed it up pretty well in the today's Independent:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/hot-air-over-wind-energy-proposals-1735760.html

Steviemak · 12-05-2009 7:30pm

philad wrote: »

What exists of plan here is hopelessly naive and even irresponsible.

A NUIG professor summed it up pretty well in the today's Independent:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/hot-air-over-wind-energy-proposals-1735760.html

Have you read the thread??:mad:

acos · 12-05-2009 9:04pm

we have started a forum, with various topics split out at
http://www.spiritofireland.org/forum/index.php

We will be continuing to update our technical data and our interactions with all political and non political stakeholders.
We will keep reviewing these forums and answering questions when we can but we cant keep posting on all of them. We started today to answer technical questions as they are posted, which also allows one central info point

thanks

Alan

Sizzler · 12-05-2009 9:42pm

Steviemak wrote: »

Interesting letter in todays Indo.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/hot-air-over-wind-energy-proposals-1735760.html

I hope my hopes won't be dashed here - however if we add in wave power which is alot more reliable the lulls would be reduced significantly.

Hard to believe the professor behind the project hadn't done the simple math here, although I would like to hear the answer

I'd say its more of an ego battle between two professors, a dance off if you will !

mike0001 · 12-05-2009 9:53pm

China flooded one valley, displaced thousand of people, and received worldwide condemnation. Particularly from the greens. Now, a bunch of Irish engineers want to flood 10 to 12 parts of the west of Ireland, build thousands of wind turbines and this is suddenly a good thing? Even if this were - it will never happen - seriously. A local green candidate opposed permission 18 months ago, for a local wind turbine , because it would interfere with migratory bird patterns. One turbine on a bleak landscape. Now try multiplying that by thousands, and flood a dozen areas while we are at it.

I wish people would wake up and follow the science and not the pseudo religion that the green party/environmental lobby has become. Wind turbines and dams may be renewable- but they are not carbon friendly.

If you want carbon friendly, the answer in nuclear. We would need two reactors. What are the chances of that happening....

First we had steorn.com, now we have spiritofireland.org, what next, DIYColdFushionInAFantaBottle.ie ?!

murphaph · 12-05-2009 10:10pm

mike0001 wrote: »

I wish people would wake up and follow the science and not the pseudo religion that the green party/environmental lobby has become. Wind turbines and dams may be renewable- but they are not carbon friendly.

Hmmm, according to wiki, the one in Wexford;

Within 3.7 months of operation the wind energy converters (WEC) at this site had produced an amount of energy equivalent to that used building and installing the WEC including production of the materials. For the next 20 years the wind farm will be producing electricity without using any resources and without pollution.

I am a fan of modern nuclear energy btw, but we should make the most of the free stuff blowing in off the Atlantic first!

Steviemak · 12-05-2009 10:13pm

Nuclear should be looked at but to comparing this to China is ridiculous. They moved a whole city.

What on earth has this to do with Steorn?? Are we to ignore all ideas put forward now because of Steorn's outrageous claims. Here was me thinking that Hydro and Wind turbines are already generating power

Also, what has this to do with the Greens???

ihatewallies · 13-05-2009 7:42pm

Sizzler wrote: »

Hard to believe the professor behind the project hadn't done the simple math here, although I would like to hear the answer

I'd say its more of an ego battle between two professors, a dance off if you will !

hmm, thought Philip Walton was a golfer.....

Doubt.It · 13-05-2009 9:55pm

(A professor emeritus isn't an actual professor. It's more like "here's a guy who ought to be a professor." Cool idea, but it doesn't guarantee consistent quality.)

You have to admire Spirit of Ireland's enthusiasm. In these worried times, it's great when people go "Let's do the show right here!" Belief in the future is in itself a precious source of energy. Perhaps the most valuable of all.

But... Mindless belief in future possibility is how we got into this ****. Hairs on the back of my neck indicate that overenthusiasm about alternative energy is no better than overenthusiasm about liberal economics - or indeed overenthusiasm about anything. We need to sit down and work out just how feasible this idea is.

The first question is whether we can - even when the wind is blowing hardest - meet our energy needs by wind generation. Is that seriously an option? SoI's figures seem... surprising. I'd like them to be right, but things I would like to be right are best assumed wrong until proved otherwise. Hard mathematics need to be done.

This guy made an attempt.

But assume he's wrong and SoI are right. The question that remains is, how much water do we need to store to smooth out the difference between the peaks and troughs of wind? In units of megalitres, or valleyfuls.

I'd sacrifice a few valleys for the sake of energy independence any day. Hell, maybe as many as eight or nine. But is this even remotely within the realm of possibility?

I am in favour of vast renewable energy projects, but I am also in favour of being sure they are going to work.

BendiBus · 13-05-2009 11:00pm

Doubt.It wrote: »

(A professor emeritus isn't an actual professor. It's more like "here's a guy who ought to be a professor."

Actually no. A professor emeritus is a real professor who has retired but who gets to keep the title.

I'm intrigued by the idea. I'm particularly encouraged by the fact that it is based on existing technology. However I'm concerned by what appears to be a lack of hard figures (although I haven't actually looked at their own website yet).

I'm also fascinated by the high number of low postcount contributors to this thread who seem only interested in trashing the idea.

Sponge Bob · 13-05-2009 11:34pm

Prof Walton is also a lobbyist for nuclear power or was very recently .

http://www.sone.org.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=411

Prof Walton, spokesman for new lobby group Better Environment for
Nuclear Energy, said there was a "resurgence of interest" in nuclear
power internationally, due to the impact of global warming on climate
change.

But I do not disagree with Ireland going nuclear for some of its base load.

Were you to replace Moneypoint with a nuke it would REDUCE the radiation in the area ....emitted by Moneypoint , LINK

This leaves wind as a swing producer and the stored water as a peak producer and battery . I generally agree with the numbers linked 3 or 4 posts before , from Sliabh

The swing in Ireland is quite considerable and wind is seriously intermittent have a look at a one page demand / production summary here

Based on those number a 1GW generation unit of wind/dam would amount to a land take of 800 square km , maybe less if it were a tad higher altitude . This would imply to me that an optimal location would have an offshore element in shallow water to reduce the land take .

A sub optimal location would be highly dispersed , you might use every mountain in east Galway for a west Galway seawater dam ..

serfboard · 14-05-2009 2:07pm

I'm surprised at the number of nucleophiles on here.

One question - what do you do with the waste?

Stark · 14-05-2009 2:22pm

Have sex with it.

plodder · 14-05-2009 2:23pm

Personally, I think if a nuke is ever built here, it would have to be on the basis of close co-operation with another country, who would probably build the plant and allow us to hook into their re-processing or storage regime.

murphaph · 14-05-2009 4:19pm

How incredibly ironic would it be if we asked BNFL to take it into Sellafield! We could just store it in Leitrim for cheap.

Carawaystick · 14-05-2009 10:14pm

serfboard wrote: »

I'm surprised at the number of nucleophiles on here.

One question - what do you do with the waste?

Re-use it
fast breeder reactors.

regarding the lad from Sliamh, I think ( without any evidence) that using an average windspeed for Ireland for the windspeed at the west coast is a weakness in his assumptions. Also the fact yer man states 2448 is larger than 2686 would worry me about the care he's given the rest of his calculations.

Offshore there's a lot of area too.

Doubt.It · 15-05-2009 6:12pm

BendiBus wrote: »

Actually no. A professor emeritus is a real professor who has retired but who gets to keep the title.

Mea culpa, that was a stupid mistake. I was thinking of honorary doctorates. I can't find the post I was responding to now, but if it was about Walton I ought to have remembered - he was a professor when I was in NUI,G. And yes, he does have something of a reputation as a nuclear energy apologist. He's the son of Walton as in Cockcroft and, the guys who "split the atom", so you can understand why he might have a soft spot.

I'm also fascinated by the high number of low postcount contributors to this thread who seem only interested in trashing the idea.

Well for my part, this is one of the few places I found that was actually discussing the proposal. And I don't want to trash it - I'm very excited about it. But I want confirmation that it is really feasible and not madly overoptimistic. I'd like to see some real assessment by disinterested third parties.

There are hard questions to be asked. (Not least, how much noise would that much wind generation create?) But the upside of this is so huge, you need to look for catches. To replace oil and coal imports, become energy self-sufficient, cut carbon emissions to virtually zero, perhaps even become an exporter of premium green electricity, all at one fell swoop! And though it may be initially expensive, can there be any better investment than replacing the unrenewable energy sources that are inevitably going to become more and more costly?

It could be fantastic. And I really want to see the country move in this direction. (Or these two directions: both more green, and more positive in attitude.) I really want to believe it is feasible.

But is it?

I have to shoot down one canard though - it is simply ridiculous to say that wind energy is not carbon neutral. Yes it does cost carbon emissions to build and install wind generators. But why? Because we don't have clean energy with which to build them.

Of course we could, as some sort of masochistic exercise, build wind generators using entirely carbon-free methods. But it makes far more sense to invest what cheap carbon-based energy we still have into building the infrastructure that we'll need when it's gone!

murphaph · 16-05-2009 2:51pm

does anyone know why the often quoted lifespans of wind turbines is so low (ca. 20 years) compared to more traditional infratsucture?

I can't believe a modern wind turbine will reach the end of its useful life in just 20 years. Fair enough, the bearings and electrical contacts (bushes, commutator, slip rings etc.) will wear out through friction but asid from that, surely the foundations, pylon, nacelle (sp?), and turbine blades are all pretty indestructible and should last more like 50-100 years than 20?

sliabh · 21-05-2009 5:12pm

How's it going there, sorry I am late to the discussion

Carawaystick wrote: »

Re-use it
fast breeder reactors.

Except no one has ever got these to work, politically (the technology can be too easily reused to manufacture weapons material) or economically.

Carawaystick wrote: »

regarding the lad from Sliamh,

That would be me. Sliabh.net is my site.

Carawaystick wrote: »

I think ( without any evidence) that using an average windspeed for Ireland for the windspeed at the west coast is a weakness in his assumptions.

The windspeed I gave is the average for the west coast, and is taken from Met Eireann:

Again I was being generous in my calculations as you can see that much of the west actually only gets 6m/s wind. The significant thing here is that the power equation is based on the cube of the speed (power per unit area = (0.5) x (air density) x (wind speed)^3) so as the speed drops there is a significant power drop.

Using 6m/s the required land area then becomes 3,887km^2 which is up 58%.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Also the fact yer man states 2448 is larger than 2686 would worry me about the care he's given the rest of his calculations.

Hands in the air - my goof. I had meant to use a smaller country for the comparison. But I went for Limerick in the end and didn't change the text (as I have done now). This is what happens when you talk to Engineers, good with numbers, poor with words.

And I will stand over my numbers

spacetweek · 22-05-2009 4:23pm

I'm also fascinated by the high number of low postcount contributors to this thread who seem only interested in trashing the idea.

Well I think it's a fantastic idea, for many reasons, the main ones being that it will reduce pollution, reduce costly fossil fuel import bills, and rejuvenate Ireland's tarnished green image.

It should be pointed out though that to talk of energy independence at this stage is greatly premature. We're looking at 50 or more years before even this plan could displace 100% of fossil fuels. There is just too much buy-in in the form of existing infrastructure.

And my postcount is nice and high

curran_c · 23-05-2009 2:21pm

according to the spirit of ireland group, two small valleys will have to be dammed in order to attain energy independence.. two out of fifty identified possible candidates. sounds good to me.

Stark · 23-05-2009 2:25pm

I'm also fascinated by the high number of low postcount contributors to this thread who seem only interested in talking up the idea.

Spirit of Ireland - A bright spark in today's economic gloom?

Comments