Apple Data Centre Athenry = Middle of Nowhere.

Greaney · 23-10-2018 3:53pm

The reason is, that the campus when all eight are built will be huge. The forest in Derry Donnell is just under 200ha. The impact will be profound and if done bit by bit, it will underplay the environmental effects. I'm assuming the whole project is the masterplan, because that (eight data halls) was what was

1) presented to the community as the project.
2) the basis for the site choice
3) here to fore, been consistently communicated as the end project, both regarding buildings and job numbers.

CatInABox · 23-10-2018 4:02pm

Greaney wrote: »

The reason is, that the campus when all eight are built will be huge. The forest in Derry Donnell is just under 200ha. The impact will be profound and if done bit by bit, it will underplay the environmental effects. I'm assuming the whole project is the masterplan, because that (eight data halls) was what was

1) presented to the community as the project.
2) the basis for the site choice
3) here to fore, been consistently communicated as the end project, both regarding buildings and job numbers.

Yeah, but that's not what was applied for. They applied to build one, not eight. ABP even said that the way that Apple went about this was totally normal, and is done all over the country already.

I also fail to see why the EIA would under play the effects when each new one has to reference the older ones.

hans aus dtschl · 23-10-2018 4:07pm

Eirgrid have been doing similar recently on another project I've seen - breaking it down to much smaller chunks to get through planning.

They start by saying "just expanding to clean up the site layout", then follow with the next phase saying "industrial infrastructure exists on site, so minimal EIS necessary" etc.

It's an abuse of the planning system alright: the EIS should evaluate the site as a whole as opposed to the marginal increases, but they get away with just EIS on the marginal increases.

Edit: Further detail added.

Greaney · 23-10-2018 4:19pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Yeah, but that's not what was applied for. They applied to build one, not eight. ABP even said that the way that Apple went about this was totally normal, and is done all over the country already.

I also fail to see why the EIA would under play the effects when each new one has to reference the older ones.

Exactly, that's what the fuss is about. They're applying to build one.... but they will be building eight. Is this legal slight of hand, to play down the effects of project, and that's why it's in front of the courts. The EIA may not have to reference previous projects, they may just have to start as a baseline where the other data centre finished. We don't have a crystal ball and we know the government etc. are loving data centres at the moment, so they might just bend the rules as the project rolls along.

In fairness... would the country even know what was going on with our resources if folk didn't stand up to shine a light on it? Our grid needs huge investment and I don't expect the tech multi-nationals will be asked to pay for their fair share. If they did.... that'd be another story.

plodder · 23-10-2018 4:33pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Eirgrid have been doing similar recently on another project I've seen - breaking it down to much smaller chunks to get through planning.

They start by saying "just expanding to clean up the site layout", then follow with the next phase saying "industrial infrastructure exists on site, so minimal EIS necessary" etc.

It's an abuse of the planning system alright: the EIS should evaluate the site as a whole as opposed to the marginal increases, but they get away with just EIS on the marginal increases.

Edit: Further detail added.

IMO, an abuse occurs when you apply for something piecemeal, when the initial application isn't buildable standalone or there isn't an intention to build it standalone. There clearly was an intention in this case.

Nobody can say that Apple were definitely going to build 8 halls. They were simply planning for the possibility and assuming demand for the services developed as projected. In the end, they didn't need to build even one. There are always contingency plans and alternatives. Denmark happens to have a more rational and sensible planning system than us (or more to the point, a less litigious and more sensible citizenry

) It's a joke that it is still being litigated long after the project was cancelled.

dubhthach · 23-10-2018 4:40pm

plodder wrote: »

An abuse occurs when you apply for something piecemeal, when the initial application isn't buildable standalone or there isn't an intention to build it standalone. There clearly was an intention in this case.

Nobody can say that Apple were definitely going to build 8 halls. They were simply planning for the possibility and assuming demand for the services developed as projected. In the end, they didn't need to build even one. There are always contingency plans and alternatives. Denmark happens to have a more rational and sensible planning system than us. It's a joke that it is still being litigated long after the project was cancelled.

A good comparison is with Facebook in Clonee. The intial planning was for two 'Data Halls' (eg. Data centers in their own right with central mgmt spine). They currently are constructing the third hall and numbers 4 and 5 are in planning:

Of course there is no guarantee that Meath County Council will give them planning on 4 and 5 (though I imagine that's unlikely), but likewise when they first floated the idea they emphasised that setup was just for the first two, with possibility of future extension subject to planning.

CatInABox · 23-10-2018 5:01pm

Greaney wrote: »

Exactly, that's what the fuss is about. They're applying to build one.... but they will be building eight. Is this legal slight of hand, to play down the effects of project, and that's why it's in front of the courts. The EIA may not have to reference previous projects, they may just have to start as a baseline where the other data centre finished. We don't have a crystal ball and we know the government etc. are loving data centres at the moment, so they might just bend the rules as the project rolls along.

In fairness... would the country even know what was going on with our resources if folk didn't stand up to shine a light on it? Our grid needs huge investment and I don't expect the tech multi-nationals will be asked to pay for their fair share. If they did.... that'd be another story.

Well, they won't be building anything actually. Even so, you can't know if they were actually going to build eight, which is the point that ABP were making. It may have been in the masterplan, but that may have been subject to various different requirements, demand, etc.

SeanW · 24-10-2018 12:07am

Deleted User wrote: »

Supreme Court told planning law “radically misapplied” in Apple Athenry case

The law was “radically misapplied” by An Bord Plean when they gave the go ahead for Apple to build an €850 million date centre in Athenry the Supreme Court has been told.
While Apple has decided to give up its plans for a data centre in Athenry after the project spent years in legal limbo, the Supreme Court is still hearing two objectors’ case.

The central part of the objection has always been whether An Bord Plean was obliged to consider the environmental impact of eight data halls, Apple’s masterplan for the site, instead of just the one hall which was contained in the application

Full story here - https://www.galwaydaily.com/news/supreme-court-told-planning-law-radically-misapplied-in-apple-athenry-case/

This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. The poxy twits who bogged this down in objections won. The billion euro investment in the West? Gone. Hundreds of jobs - outside main cities where they are desperately needed? Gone. They wanted to stick a knife in the backs of rural people who would have benefited and they succeeded. What the hell are they still suing for?

Greaney · 24-10-2018 1:02am

Well, for a start they live near there, in fact, there were more who live near it, who had gone as far as judicial review. It's not as simple as it seems...

plodder · 24-10-2018 8:40am

Greaney wrote: »

Well, for a start they live near there, in fact, there were more who live near it, who had gone as far as judicial review. It's not as simple as it seems...

One lived quite a long way away from it. Wicklow, if I'm not mistaken..

4ensic15 · 24-10-2018 8:47am

SeanW wrote: »

This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. The poxy twits who bogged this down in objections won. The billion euro investment in the West? Gone. Hundreds of jobs - outside main cities where they are desperately needed? Gone. They wanted to stick a knife in the backs of rural people who would have benefited and they succeeded. What the hell are they still suing for?

The hundreds of jobs would only be during the construction phase. There would be very few jobs when the centre is running. The impact on the national grid would be enormous. When the data centres become redundant in a few years those places will be white elephants.

plodder · 24-10-2018 8:55am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The hundreds of jobs would only be during the construction phase. There would be very few jobs when the centre is running. The impact on the national grid would be enormous. When the data centres become redundant in a few years those places will be white elephants.

I'm still wondering what development is going to make these data centres redundant "in a few years". It's true there would potentially be a big impact on the grid, but it seems to me, that that should be a matter of discussion at national/government level and not something that is decided by the actions of individual objectors. Like why should Clonee be allowed to have a project like this, but not Athenry?

bk · 24-10-2018 9:23am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The hundreds of jobs would only be during the construction phase. There would be very few jobs when the centre is running. The impact on the national grid would be enormous. When the data centres become redundant in a few years those places will be white elephants.

How would data centers ever become redundant!!! They are here to stay for the long term. The servers in them do change constantly, get upgraded, etc. but the physical infrastructure doesn't change much, the building, the UPS, the cooling systems, the power supplies, etc.

What do you think makes the internet work, magic fairy dust!

Ironically this site you are posting on is hosted in a data center and pretty much every single website or service you use on your phone or laptop passes through a data center.

markpb · 24-10-2018 9:26am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The hundreds of jobs would only be during the construction phase. There would be very few jobs when the centre is running. The impact on the national grid would be enormous. When the data centres become redundant in a few years those places will be white elephants.

Buildings become redundant all the time. It's not a reason not to build them. If I look out my window at work, I can see two office buildings being extensively refurbished and two old warehouses being demolished to make way for new offices and apartments. This happens all the time.

Wanderer78 · 24-10-2018 9:42am

We do have to ask ourselves, is a relatively low job creator and a relatively high energy use facility the way forward for Ireland?

Pussyhands · 24-10-2018 9:48am

bk wrote: »

How would data centers ever become redundant!!! They are here to stay for the long term. The servers in them do change constantly, get upgraded, etc. but the physical infrastructure doesn't change much, the building, the UPS, the cooling systems, the power supplies, etc.

What do you think makes the internet work, magic fairy dust!

Ironically this site you are posting on is hosted in a data center and pretty much every single website or service you use on your phone or laptop passes through a data center.

Stupid question off topic but does that mean all data is stored there? What isn't located there? What if someone bombed the data centre, would all data be lost or would boards for example have it backed up on multiple different DCs?

4ensic15 · 24-10-2018 9:59am

bk wrote: »

How would data centers ever become redundant!!! Th.

Moore's law.

plodder · 24-10-2018 10:04am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We do have to ask ourselves, is a relatively low job creator and a relatively high energy use facility the way forward for Ireland?

We're not likely to get a good answer out of a process driven by people who just don't want it in their backyard and someone else who just wanted it built somewhere else.

dubhthach · 24-10-2018 10:04am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The hundreds of jobs would only be during the construction phase. There would be very few jobs when the centre is running. The impact on the national grid would be enormous. When the data centres become redundant in a few years those places will be white elephants.

I'm sorry but how do Data Centers become redudant? Is that you think they will suddenly migrate to the mythical 'Cloud' ? Newsflash the Data Centers are the actual Cloud.

What people seem to be missing is the Corporate tax accruing due to presence of DC's for the big cloud providers. Think about it if you are "buying time" (Time-sharing of the 1960's and 70's basically) on Amazon AWS in Europe you are most likely to use AWS Dublin region (there is Frankfurt but Dublin is preferred). Your Virtual machines (eg. virtualised computers running a OS and Software stack) will be sitting on servers in Dublin, every billable minute will be a service provided out of Ireland. ergo the likes of the French goverenment can't claim a slice of corporation tax due as the service is completely running in Ireland (CPU time, data storage usage, heck even bulk of Network connectivity).

In case of Apple it's even simpler, if you pay a monthly fee for iCloud space + iTunes etc and your data is stored in DC's in Ireland then the serviced been offered is actually an export from Ireland and not the old trick where the physical device was sold by 'Apple France' (but manufactured in China) but billed to 'Apple Ireland'.

dubhthach · 24-10-2018 10:11am

Pussyhands wrote: »

Stupid question off topic but does that mean all data is stored there? What isn't located there? What if someone bombed the data centre, would all data be lost or would boards for example have it backed up on multiple different DCs?

Usually with large either Enterprise DC providers or 'Cloud providers' you have high end Disaster Recovery/High Availability in place. So for example:
auto-migration of data between DC's. or for example in case of something like boards you would have multiple backend Databases in a multi-master configuration (one per site).

In AWS for example you can configure/pay for redudant setup where your instances are 'striped' across at least two 'AWS regions' (lets say Dublin and Frankfurt). If the primary instance (lets say Dublin) goes down either due to DC issue/connectivity etc the system can auto-fail over to Frankfurt with minimum outage.

bk · 24-10-2018 11:04am

4ensic15 wrote: »

Moore's law.

Oh god :rolleyes:

As I mentioned you do constantly upgrade the servers within the data center, that is where Moores Law comes in, new server with faster CPU's which can do more units of work faster and at a lower energy use (per unit of work).

But you still need somewhere for those servers and storage appliances and that is called a data center.

While Moores law increases computational power, the demand for increased internet services has vastly outstripped the ability for Moores law to keep up and it is why all the major internet companies are scrambling to build lots of data centers.

As an aside, you might be interested to hear that the growth rate as predicted by Moores Law started slowing down in 2012 and continues to fall. From wiki:

Moore's law is an observation and projection of a historical trend and not a physical or natural law. Although the rate held steady from 1975 until around 2012, the rate was faster during the first decade. In general, it is not logically sound to extrapolate from the historical growth rate into the indefinite future.

Data centers aren't going anywhere.

CatInABox · 24-10-2018 11:20am

plodder wrote: »

I'm still wondering what development is going to make these data centres redundant "in a few years". It's true there would potentially be a big impact on the grid, but it seems to me, that that should be a matter of discussion at national/government level and not something that is decided by the actions of individual objectors. Like why should Clonee be allowed to have a project like this, but not Athenry?

The electricity market in Ireland operates on supply and demand. If there's more demand, then companies will increase supply. If apple actually built all eight data centres, by the time that they are finished building, more windfarms and power plants will have come online to service the demand.

That's how it's worked for the last 80 years or so, so I'm totally confused by the objections. What's more, Apple committed to 100% renewable, as they have worldwide, and are willing to pay more for it too. This data centre would have 100% resulted in more renewable electricity in Ireland, unless of course, people objected to those too.

Wanderer78 · 24-10-2018 11:24am

CatInABox wrote: »

The electricity market in Ireland operates on supply and demand. If there's more demand, then companies will increase supply. If apple actually built all eight data centres, by the time that they are finished building, more windfarms and power plants will have come online to service the demand.

That's how it's worked for the last 80 years or so, so I'm totally confused by the objections. What's more, Apple committed to 100% renewable, as they have worldwide, and are willing to pay more for it too. This data centre would have 100% resulted in more renewable electricity in Ireland, unless of course, people objected to those too.

always be wary of the workings of 'supply and demand', and large corporations for that matter, as they dont seem to truly work they way we think they do in reality.

hans aus dtschl · 24-10-2018 11:29am

bk wrote: »

Data centers aren't going anywhere.

I think this is all fine and reasonable, but there are two big points as I see it:
1: The planning process here was abused by people simply "frustrating" the applicant until they went away.
2: The planning process here was abused by the applicant "splitting" the project into smaller projects.

It'd be great to see our planning process improved to the point where projects are approved quickly with tougher and clearer conditions and an iterative review of compliance with same, so that everybody's concerns are addressed. At the moment it's kind of all-or-nothing, possibly because nobody really polices the planning conditions afterwards. The EIS is usually only done once.

I have some familiarity with a project where this is/was also the case, so I can see it from both sides. A site not zoned for industrial use gets planning for a minor strategic industrial facility, none of the planning conditions are enforced, site expands, it causes environmental and social problems, the next planning is approved based on the previous facility's approval and in the end a large industrial facility is built with no benefit to locals with some downsides for locals and they strive to frustrate any future planning applications.

plodder · 24-10-2018 11:38am

CatInABox wrote: »

The electricity market in Ireland operates on supply and demand. If there's more demand, then companies will increase supply. If apple actually built all eight data centres, by the time that they are finished building, more windfarms and power plants will have come online to service the demand.

That's how it's worked for the last 80 years or so, so I'm totally confused by the objections. What's more, Apple committed to 100% renewable, as they have worldwide, and are willing to pay more for it too. This data centre would have 100% resulted in more renewable electricity in Ireland, unless of course, people objected to those too.

I think the bigger issue is that we are investing a lot of money and land resources on renewable (wind) energy and the question is does it make sense to divert that investment towards data centres which at the end of the day, won't employ that many people. Personally, I don't know the answer to the question. But, I do support investment in wind energy. It might be more transparent if future data centres were required to have wind farms on site or within 5 km for example.

But, none of the above is a good reason why the Athenry project shouldn't have gone ahead because no such policy exists today. By all means review the situation and create a new policy, but by the present rules, Athenry should have gone ahead imo. I can't understand how the courts have allowed this to happen. The splitting argument is total nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

dubhthach · 24-10-2018 11:48am

CatInABox wrote: »

The electricity market in Ireland operates on supply and demand. If there's more demand, then companies will increase supply. If apple actually built all eight data centres, by the time that they are finished building, more windfarms and power plants will have come online to service the demand.

That's how it's worked for the last 80 years or so, so I'm totally confused by the objections. What's more, Apple committed to 100% renewable, as they have worldwide, and are willing to pay more for it too. This data centre would have 100% resulted in more renewable electricity in Ireland, unless of course, people objected to those too.

Given the contuined fall in cost of photovoltaic cells (as well as increased efficency), it wouldn't surprise me that in the future that large 'Hyperscale' Datacenters like what Facebook have built and what Apple proposed will have to include both Photovaltic cells on their roofs (in space not taken up by HVAC) as well as contained Grid connected battery storage (akin to what Telsa has been selling).

We know that ESB and Bord na Móna are talking about installing 570MW of solar on 4 cut away bogs over the next couple of years. If you factor in proper storage solution this should allow for complete closure of BnM turf fired stations (which ties in with their announcements of redundancies in Turf harvesting).

I imagine that a number of large Hyperscale DC's operators would be more then willing to enter multi-year agreement for Solar at a guaranteed unit price, if so this would make it considerably easier for ESB/BnM to raise relevant funding through bond sales etc.

bk · 24-10-2018 12:08pm

The power generation argument is such nonsense.

Electricity usage and thus generation has fallen quiet a bit over the last few years, that is why the ESB and others have been shutting a number of power plants over the last few years.

The amount of CO2 generated per gigawatt of power has halved in the past 20 years alone and it will continue to fall.

Just yesterday Bord Na Mona announced the laying off of a 1,000 people over the next few years as the demand for peat falls and the two peat powered plants close or get converted to biofuel. These peat plants were the dirtiest.

The ESB just this year fully wrote off the cost of Moneypoint, our last goal burning plant. The 1.2 billion plant is now worthless and it is expected to close by 2025, just 7 years from now.

Why is all of this happening, it is because wind and solar have gotten so cheap, along with "cleaner" gas, that peat, coal and oil simply can't economically compete anymore. Our grid is going clean.

Apple have already reached 100% renewable energy use at all their offices and data centers. This new one would have been no different.

gctest50 · 24-10-2018 12:17pm

Might be an ideal place for nuclear plant

Neworder79 · 24-10-2018 12:31pm

Apple Now Runs On 100% Green Energy, And Here’s How It Got There

hans aus dtschl · 24-10-2018 12:34pm

bk wrote: »

The power generation argument is such nonsense.

Electricity usage and thus generation has fallen quiet a bit over the last few years, that is why the ESB and others have been shutting a number of power plants over the last few years.

The amount of CO2 generated per gigawatt of power has halved in the past 20 years alone and it will continue to fall.

Just yesterday Bord Na Mona announced the laying off of a 1,000 people over the next few years as the demand for peat falls and the two peat powered plants close or get converted to biofuel. These peat plants were the dirtiest.

The ESB just this year fully wrote off the cost of Moneypoint, our last goal burning plant. The 1.2 billion plant is now worthless and it is expected to close by 2025, just 7 years from now.

Why is all of this happening, it is because wind and solar have gotten so cheap, along with "cleaner" gas, that peat, coal and oil simply can't economically compete anymore. Our grid is going clean.

Apple have already reached 100% renewable energy use at all their offices and data centers. This new one would have been no different.

I'm not entirely sure that you're right here on a good few points.

I believe our energy consumption is still increasing significantly. We're bringing wind online at a good rate. The reasons for writing off coal and peat is because the plants are slow to start up and big polluters in a no-load situation. They want more gas to balance the wind. The reality is that wind and solar can't yet compete with non-renewables unfortunately, so what we've done (rightly IMO) is artificially inflate the cost of the non-renewables so that the renewables can compete. We're now at a point where our grid is badly balanced because of the amount of wind, so some of the turbines and farms are being paid to produce but not actually connected to the grid. Similar problems faced by the duck curve in California. And that's why we want the 400kV line to France.

Anyway, the general gist of what you're writing is "coal and peat are bad, wind and solar are good" and that's the main thing.

I'm not sure how exactly Apple can claim 100% renewable offices, just taking the Irish situation as an example. It's a very creative/selective statement of energy usage. If it's not windy in Ireland then they're by definition using something else: on the balance of things they're possibly supplying a lot of renewable power to the grid, probably enough to balance their own load, but there are certainly days when they're using non-renewable energy.

dubhthach · 24-10-2018 12:50pm

I imagine it would be case that they did or are looking at doing a deal like what Microsoft did. Microsoft is basically gonna offset their Azure (the name of their cloud platform) energy usage in Ireland (major hyperscale DC campus in Grange castle) by buying the entire output of the GE owned wind farm in Kerry

https://news.microsoft.com/2017/10/09/microsoft-ge-sign-agreement-on-new-wind-project-in-ireland/

Interesting that they have integrated battery storage into each turbine in this farm, though personally I imagine it would be more efficient to have the turbines feeding into large battery storage unit such as the ones Tesla won contracts for in California:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/california-utility-looks-to-add-gigawatt-hours-of-battery-storage-before-2020/

The Mira Loma substation setup was 20MW/80MWh

https://electrek.co/2017/01/23/tesla-mira-loma-powerpack-station-southern-california-edison/

I'm not sure of the cost but it was probably on order of 20-30M. The South Australia 100MW/129MWh battery cost €56m and made back €8.1m in revenue in 6 months providing grid services

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-australias-tesla-battery-on-track-to-make-back-a-third-of-cost-in-a-year

If we take that as a ballpark and leaving aside the fact that battery prices have fallen you could potentially provide a GW of battery backed dispatcheable power for somewhere in area of 500-700m. That would at least allow you to offset excess production of wind etc and keep the grid balanced.

With regards to the French interconnection, on a similiar vane we are getting a Cork to France Fibre Optic cable to provide direct connection to continent and thus Brexit proofing data traffic for DC's etc.

It's gonna have 96 pairs with up to 10Tbps on each pair so total capacity of about 960 Tbits/s

Greaney · 24-10-2018 12:57pm

plodder wrote: »

One lived quite a long way away from it. Wicklow, if I'm not mistaken..

You are mistaken, the 'poxy twits' that you are giving out about live locally.

gctest50 · 24-10-2018 1:06pm

Greaney wrote: »

You are mistaken, the 'poxy twits' that you are giving out about live locally.

There was another :

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ulster-bank-sues-apple-objector-and-brothers-over-wicklow-site-1.3559261?mode=amp

The bank is seeking judgment against three brothers over money given to them to buy an 80-acre site in Wicklow where it was proposed to develop a data centre

Imagine dat - an objector who happened to be buying an 80 acre site to develop a data centre

I wonder why they were objecting then ?

Greaney · 24-10-2018 1:12pm

Yes, there were many who objected, but your original rant was about the current two who are 'holding everything up', and they are local. Look, you can throw the kitchen sink at this, and be angry about it, but they have every right to object, and they may have a point that mainstream media etc. have missed.

Remember, we sold our fishing rights, and the rights to some of our natural resources in the past. Maybe, just maybe, through some bad planning, we're selling our resources (electricity grid, climate change promises etc.) for a song, to a multinational (s), from whom we ask no mitigation and maybe, we are so dazzled, that we cannot see the cost... right now.

gctest50 · 24-10-2018 1:17pm

Greaney wrote: »

Yes, there were many who objected, but your original rant was about the current two who are 'holding everything up', and they are local.......

One of them is a yank, only here a few days as the saying goes

He moved here " for love reasons " or smth

dubhthach · 24-10-2018 1:23pm

gctest50 wrote: »

One of them is a yank, only here a few days as the saying goes

He moved here " for love reasons " or smth

perhaps but with surname like Daly he's hardly just a yank, the surname is present in East Galway since at least the 15th century

Greaney · 24-10-2018 1:32pm

gctest50 wrote: »

One of them is a yank, only here a few days as the saying goes

He moved here " for love reasons " or smth

A few days? Right, you're not that interested in any actual facts. The ad hominem attacks mean you don't have an actual argument on the matter itself. If your bottom line is jobs at any cost.....

plodder · 24-10-2018 2:03pm

Greaney wrote: »

You are mistaken, the 'poxy twits' that you are giving out about live locally.

I never used that term.

hans aus dtschl · 24-10-2018 2:25pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Interesting that they have integrated battery storage into each turbine in this farm, though personally I imagine it would be more efficient to have the turbines feeding into large battery storage unit such as the ones Tesla won contracts for in California:

I didn't realise they had storage, that's cool.
That concept is definitely the future and it feels like everyone's on the same page with it, but we're not they're yet, is all I was saying.

Edit: the French links can't happen soon enough. This was the EirGrid project I've had some exposure to. Without it we're in a slightly precarious position with regards power in a Brexit no-deal scenario.

plodder · 24-10-2018 2:42pm

I would guess that battery storage built into wind turbines is more for grid stability than anything else. Traditional fossil fueled generators are large heavy machines. So, they have a lot of inertia and can react well to instantaneous changes in power demand. Adding batteries to wind turbines emulates the same behaviour. The bottom line is the batteries only provide power at the level of seconds and minutes, rather than hours or days.

ezstreet5 · 24-10-2018 3:18pm

bk wrote: »

Electricity usage and thus generation has fallen quiet a bit over the last few years, that is why the ESB and others have been shutting a number of power plants over the last few years.

There is wide agreement to the contrary. Per EirGrid's annual Capacity Generation Statements (Appendix 1), Ireland used:

2014 = 26.6 TWh
2015 = 27.4 TWh
2016 = 28.2 TWh
2017 = 28.8 TWh

bk wrote: »

Apple have already reached 100% renewable energy use at all their offices and data centers. This new one would have been no different.

This shows the influence of Apple's environmental public relations strategy. For the Athenry project, the An Bord Pleanala Inspector's Report says at para. 12.6.7:

"On balance I would agree with the basis of the argument put forward by the appellants and observers regarding the claims of 100 percent renewable power supply. [...] In my opinion the best assumption which can be made is that power supply to the development will be from the grid average power generation sources."

Yet the project was nonetheless approved, which could be seen as problematic. (It may be helpful to read that entire section of the Inspector's Report for full context).

plodder · 24-10-2018 3:46pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Yet the project was nonetheless approved, which could be seen as problematic.

A few fluffy statements about renewables aren't sufficient grounds to refuse an important project like that. Eirgrid in particular didn't seem to have major concerns.

Greaney · 24-10-2018 3:47pm

plodder wrote: »

I never used that term.

True, it was used by this dude...

SeanW wrote: »

This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. The poxy twits who bogged this down in objections won. The billion euro investment in the West? Gone. Hundreds of jobs - outside main cities where they are desperately needed? Gone. They wanted to stick a knife in the backs of rural people who would have benefited and they succeeded. What the hell are they still suing for?

He can't understand why they're suing, and I said they lived locally so that would go some way to explaining. You answered my answer to his statement so you got the reply. Ye were kinda working as a tag team there

dubhthach · 24-10-2018 4:07pm

plodder wrote: »

I would guess that battery storage built into wind turbines is more for grid stability than anything else. Traditional fossil fueled generators are large heavy machines. So, they have a lot of inertia and can react well to instantaneous changes in power demand. Adding batteries to wind turbines emulates the same behaviour. The bottom line is the batteries only provide power at the level of seconds and minutes, rather than hours or days.

Well the example I gave above in California is designed to give out 20MW for 4 hours straight. That's not bad going. The Australian example will give you just over an hour of constant 100MW onto grid. I know there's a project under construction at the moment in California which is 100MW/400MWh so basically it will be able to dispatch 100MW onto grid constantly for 4 hours before it flatlines!

GE recently did a pilot I believe also in California where they tied a Grid scale battery to a Gas peaker plant. The major problem with peakers is you have to have turbines spinning at certain level to meet immediate demand, as a result there's pollution even when you aren't actually contributing to the grid. Anyways GE developed a system where turbine could be in complete cold state and when demand would peak that the battery system would dispatch for the 20minutes or so it took to spin turbine up. Result considerable reduction in greenhouse emissions from the peaker plant.

see:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ges-current-builds-worlds-first-utility-battery-gas-turbine-hybrid#gs.pCyEO0c
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/inside-ge-and-socal-edisons-battery-integrated-gas-fired-peaker-plants#gs.go2rRtg

see GE's page here:
https://www.ge.com/power/services/gas-turbines/upgrades/hybrid-egt

GE Power Services business, together with Southern California Edison (SCE), in collaboration with Wellhead Power Solutions, LLC, recently installed the world’s first battery storage and gas turbine hybrid. The goal: to quell concerns around changing regulations and grid requirements following California’s Aliso Canyon energy emergency. The project will reinforce California’s grid, resulting in increased renewable energy and fuel savings.
SCE, a utility that provides more than 15 million people with power, has won six awards for the project, including two for innovation, one for clean air, and even one from Power Engineering for Best Overall Project.

“GE’s new LM6000 Hybrid EGT product fits well with SCE's objective of providing cost–effective, innovative solutions that enhance grid reliability, flexibility, and fast response to our customers,” said Phil Herrington, vice president of Generation for SCE.

As part of the project, GE installed a 10 MW battery energy storage system in the LM6000 Hybrid EGT followed by gas turbine controls upgrades to integrate the two systems. SCE estimates that the systems will use 2 million fewer gallons of water to operate, as well as reduce emissions by 60%. Additionally, the Hybrid EGT’s fast-start capabilities mean that it can produce spinning reserve power, making it even more valuable for SCE.

Vibhu Kaushik, director of grid technology and modernization at SCE remarked “Renewable and energy storage provide the perfect combination where you can harness renewable energy and match the supply to how the demand is shaped on the grid.”

https://www.ge.com/power/case-studies/southern-california-edison

ezstreet5 · 24-10-2018 4:19pm

plodder wrote: »

A few fluffy statements about renewables aren't sufficient grounds to refuse an important project like that. Eirgrid in particular didn't seem to have major concerns.

What isn't fluffy is the 40% RES-E target that Ireland must meet by 2020. I doubt the EU considers this commitment to be "soft law," where if Ireland is a little short, or a little late, there will be no consequence. There are consequences built right into the Renewable Energy Directive, called "cooperation mechanisms," under which Ireland will need to purchase credit from Member States that have exceeded their targets, such as Denmark (and it isn't cheap). If Ireland fails to "cooperate," the EU has made it clear that infringement penalties will be assessed. So either Apple provides real, additional renewable energy to the grid to offset their new load, or the compliance cost will shift to the State, its taxpayers, and electricity rate payers.

Eirgrid have routinely distanced themselves from this issue with quotes such as:

‘We are not responsible for the development of energy policy. Neither do we own, construct, or operate any form of generation, including wind farms. As per our statutory and license obligations, we are required to plan and develop the transmission system to meet reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity. In addition, we are required to offer terms and enter into agreements for connection to and use of the transmission system with all those using and seeking to use the transmission system. This includes, large industrial customers, wind farms and data centres, irrespective of whether they are Irish or foreign owned.' (Grid Development Strategy - Response to Stakeholder Feedback, Section 3.3).

It is the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (formerly CER) that need to take a closer look at this issue.

plodder · 24-10-2018 4:23pm

Greaney wrote: »

Ye were kinda working as a tag team there

No we weren't. But please be less sloppy when replying to people's posts.

Greaney · 24-10-2018 4:28pm

plodder wrote: »

No we weren't. But please be less sloppy when replying to people's posts.

Sure

plodder · 24-10-2018 4:40pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

What isn't fluffy is the 40% RES-E target that Ireland must meet by 2020. I doubt the EU considers this commitment to be "soft law," where if Ireland is a little short, or a little late, there will be no consequence. There are consequences built right into the Renewable Energy Directive, called "cooperation mechanisms," under which Ireland will need to purchase credit from Member States that have exceeded their targets, such as Denmark (and it isn't cheap). If Ireland fails to "cooperate," the EU has made it clear that infringement penalties will be assessed. So either Apple provides real, additional renewable energy to the grid to offset their new load, or the compliance cost will shift to the State, its taxpayers, and electricity rate payers.

Eirgrid have routinely distanced themselves from this issue with quotes such as:

‘We are not responsible for the development of energy policy. Neither do we own, construct, or operate any form of generation, including wind farms. As per our statutory and license obligations, we are required to plan and develop the transmission system to meet reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity. In addition, we are required to offer terms and enter into agreements for connection to and use of the transmission system with all those using and seeking to use the transmission system. This includes, large industrial customers, wind farms and data centres, irrespective of whether they are Irish or foreign owned.' (Grid Development Strategy - Response to Stakeholder Feedback, Section 3.3).

It is the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (formerly CER) that need to take a closer look at this issue.

Right, but what they were applying for was only 30MW for phase 1. There was nothing to stop the state (other than the project being cancelled of course

) from putting appropriate policies in place before future phases would be approved.

4ensic15 · 24-10-2018 8:21pm

bk wrote: »

Oh god :rolleyes:

As I mentioned you do constantly upgrade the servers within the data center, that is where Moores Law comes in, new server with faster CPU's which can do more units of work faster and at a lower energy use (per unit of work).

Data centers aren't going anywhere.

Data centres are being cited in Ireland for climatic reasons. They need less heating or cooling in Ireland than in other locations. When the technology advances the climatic reasons will no longer be relevant. I recall when 1 gigabyte needed a machine the size of a washing machine in an air-conditioned room. In a few years, the current data centres will fit in a space the size of a lunch box and won't need air conditioning. There will be no reason to have them in Ireland. The ones that are here will be abandoned.

ezstreet5 · 24-10-2018 9:52pm

plodder wrote: »

Right, but what they were applying for was only 30MW for phase 1. There was nothing to stop the state (other than the project being cancelled of course ) from putting appropriate policies in place before future phases would be approved.

Or even better, instead of waiting for some vague inter-agency government policy on data centres to develop and be applied, why doesn't the competent authority simply require project-specific mitigation measures to be applied as a condition of approval for Phase 1 of the development? Surely this can be done under the authority of the EIA Directive, and specifically, Annex IV(7) which requires "a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent, reduce and wherever, if possible offset any identified significant adverse effects on the environment...." If Apple's '100% renewable energy' proposal is lacking (as the ABP Inspector apparently found), other measures should be considered. This could include waste heat recovery (as was required in Denmark), or even payment of 2.5x the PRO levy. (If the PRO levy is meant to support 40% renewables, than 2.5x the levy would support a claim of 100% renewables and lower the PRO for the rest of us). Or if no direct mitigation can be applied, then Apple should at least do what they proposed for their Waukee, Iowa data centre, and provide a $100 million community development fund for the area.

Apple Data Centre Athenry = Middle of Nowhere.

Comments