Energy generation in Germany etc.

SeanW

The thread about the Kassel experiments, which demonstrated in a pilot project, a group of renewables providing a set requirement of electricity at all times in Germany, got hijacked by some conversation that was of limited relation. I accept my share of responsibility for that, since the experiment is interesting, its merits should be debated on their own.

For reference, here is the Der Spiegel article that caused this board's anti nukes to see red.

I've decided to respond to Lennoxschip's latest post there in here: I can't seem to get to that ATM so I can't quote Lenny's post here.

No, the German government didn't explicity legislate for coal burning, but they've done everything just short of it, in 3 key ways.

1) By failing to tax coal a penalty for its environmental consequences, which if I'm not mistaken they could do if they wanted to limit its role.
2) By (assuming the Kassel experiments can be done on a large scale) not moving decisively to support renewable energy as an alternative to both nuclear power and fossil fuels.
3) By banning nuclear, and calling for the complete end of their nuclear programme by 2020.

Oh and BTW the (coal burning) companies aren't "doing what they want" they're doing what they're being told they can do. Like the nuclear power producing companies who have been accused of bribing local governments, in trying to hold on to their reactors a little longer.

Clearly, they cannot do so without government allies.

And neither can the coal burners.

Taken all this information, I would have to ask how on Earth you can conclude that the German coal programme is anything other than a state-driven fossil fuels bonanza.

And as for your fuel-efficiency at speed graph, some of those cars have only marginal differences between their economies at 55 and 80 MPH. In addition, most don't get really inefficient until they get into the 100+ range. So for driving in the normal course, our 74MPH maximum limit seems quite reasonable. Noone wants to know about a nationwide 80k limit so it will never happen.

Lennoxschips

And as for your fuel-efficiency at speed graph, some of those cars have only marginal differences between their economies at 55 and 80 MPH. In addition, most don't get really inefficient until they get into the 100+ range. So for driving in the normal course, our 74MPH maximum limit seems quite reasonable. Noone wants to know about a nationwide 80k limit so it will never happen.

I wouldn't consider a 40% reduction in emissions "marginal". There's a reason why trucks and buses trundle along at 80 km/hr.

I have driven a diesel car with an on board computer, I did an experiment myself. Doing 140-150 km/hr on the Autobahn I got 6.4 litres per 100 km. Doing 120 km/hr on the Dutch motorways I got 5.5 litres per 100 km. Doing 100 km/hr on Dutch motorways gave me 4.8 litres per 100 km. Then, I got in the outside lane and cruised along with the trucks at 81 km/hr, and to my astonishment I got 3.6 litres per 100 km. So going from 120 to 80 gave me a reduction in fuel burn of more than 1/3 (35%), which is not to be sneezed at.

There's all this talk about hybrid cars, electric cars and hydrogen economies, but all of that is years, if not decades, away. We need action as quickly as possible, and with a simple speed limit reduction you could cut car emissions tomorrow. If the Green Party had any cojones they'd push for this.

All Irish single carriageway roads should have 80 km/hr limits anyway, as most of them are unsuitable for the posted 100 km/hr limits. It would be safer, and, as it transpires, much better for the environment to lower the limit. The only reason to keep them high is the usual gombeen man politics.

So what I would propose is to lower limits to 80 km/hr on all single carriageway roads, and to lower the motorway limits to 100 km/hr. There is a case to be made however to install a permanent 80 km/hr limit on urban motorways such as the M50, as has been done in on the Paris Périphérique and Amsterdam ring. The lower fuel burn would reduce particle emissions in the immediate urban area.

probe

SeanW wrote: »

The thread about the Kassel experiments, which demonstrated in a pilot project, a group of renewables providing a set requirement of electricity at all times in Germany, got hijacked by some conversation that was of limited relation. I accept my share of responsibility for that, since the experiment is interesting, its merits should be debated on their own.

For reference, here is the Der Spiegel article that caused this board's anti nukes to see red.

I've decided to respond to Lennoxschip's latest post there in here: I can't seem to get to that ATM so I can't quote Lenny's post here.

No, the German government didn't explicity legislate for coal burning, but they've done everything just short of it, in 3 key ways.

1) By failing to tax coal a penalty for its environmental consequences, which if I'm not mistaken they could do if they wanted to limit its role.
2) By (assuming the Kassel experiments can be done on a large scale) not moving decisively to support renewable energy as an alternative to both nuclear power and fossil fuels.
3) By banning nuclear, and calling for the complete end of their nuclear programme by 2020.

Oh and BTW the (coal burning) companies aren't "doing what they want" they're doing what they're being told they can do. Like the nuclear power producing companies who have been accused of bribing local governments, in trying to hold on to their reactors a little longer.

Clearly, they cannot do so without government allies.

And neither can the coal burners.

Taken all this information, I would have to ask how on Earth you can conclude that the German coal programme is anything other than a state-driven fossil fuels bonanza.

And as for your fuel-efficiency at speed graph, some of those cars have only marginal differences between their economies at 55 and 80 MPH. In addition, most don't get really inefficient until they get into the 100+ range. So for driving in the normal course, our 74MPH maximum limit seems quite reasonable. Noone wants to know about a nationwide 80k limit so it will never happen.

Why be so doctrinaire against coal? I would suggest that a phased-in CO2 tax based on g/CO2 per kWh of electricity generated.

At one extreme, take a dirty coal plant generating 1kg of CO2 per kW/h generated – tax that electricity at 10c per kWh (ie 1c per 100g of CO2).

If they put CO2 scrubbers on the plant that are 90% efficient, they get the CO2 down to 100g/CO2 and pay a tax of only 1c per kW generated.

That tax could be phased in over a 5 or 10 year period eg 10 or 20% of the tax payable in year 1, gradually increasing to 100% payable in year 5 or 10.

The proceeds of the tax take could be ring fenced for subsidising green energy in the early years of a technology and for funding grants towards research in new green energy technologies.

Wind would pay no tax under this. Gas generators would have to pay about 4c per kWh after the 5 or 10 year phase in period.

.probe

Lennoxschips

If they put CO2 scrubbers on the plant that are 90% efficient

That would be great, but we'll see people walking on Pluto before such a thing is invented and found to work feasibly.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote: »

So going from 120 to 80 gave me a reduction in fuel burn of more than 1/3 (35%), which is not to be sneezed at.

It also increases your travel time along the same stretch by 50% (120 km will take 1.5 hours, instead of 1 hour).

Now, you can argue that in reality, it won't have that effect, because you never really average 120km due to the nature of traffic flow....but in which case, you never really generate emissions as though you were averaging 120km either.

We need action as quickly as possible, and with a simple speed limit reduction you could cut car emissions tomorrow.

With a simple enforced speed limit reduction, you would reduce emissions during those times when cars along motorways travel at an average speed above said speed-limit.

On something like the M50 Parking Lot, I'd be skeptical as to how big an impact that would have in reality.

If the Green Party had any cojones they'd push for this.

Maybe. I'd imagine that if they did, they'd get crucified, because someone would do the math that I'm hinting at, and show that the actual percentage of emissions which caused by traffic travelling over 80 or 100 km/h is relatively tiny.

There is a case to be made however to install a permanent 80 km/hr limit on urban motorways such as the M50, as has been done in on the Paris Périphérique and Amsterdam ring.

IIRC, the lower speed limit on those roads was implemented because it was shown to reduce accidents and ultimately shorten commute times...it (counter-intuitively) lead to a net increase in average speed.

Me, I'd be in favour of a variable-speed-limit system (which we have on some stretches around Bern, for example). In rush-hour / heavy traffic the speed-limit is dropped to 80. Otherwise, its normally 100. Now that the state has taken ownership of the roads from the cantons (just like has happened in Ireland) this is expected to change so that the upper limit is 120 like it should be.

That would be great, but we'll see people walking on Pluto before such a thing is invented and found to work feasibly.

CO2 scrubbers which remove 90% of the CO2 from flue gases have been invented.

The problem is that the CO2 still needs to be sequestrated somehow.....

Lennoxschips

IIRC, the lower speed limit on those roads was implemented because it was shown to reduce accidents and ultimately shorten commute times...it (counter-intuitively) lead to a net increase in average speed.

In Amsterdam they did it for air quality reasons. There's a big sign on the ring road that says: "80 km/hr in fifth gear, cleaner air for all" In Paris they did it for traffic flow and air quality reasons, no reason why that shouldn't be done in Dublin as well.

Now, you can argue that in reality, it won't have that effect, because you never really average 120km due to the nature of traffic flow....but in which case, you never really generate emissions as though you were averaging 120km either.

I once drove to Paris and drove according to the speed limit. I did 120-130 km/hr for most of the trip and passed out a truck from Tipperary South (you remember things like that) doing 90 km/hr somewhere near Antwerp. Then I got stuck in slower moving traffic around Gent and Lille and outside Paris. I saw that exact same truck driving just behind me on the Peripherique. All that going fast and then being stuck in traffic gave me no time saving, but wasted a lot of fuel. If I had driven along with that truck the whole way I'd have made a big fuel saving and have arrived at exactly the same time.

This is one reason why commercial hauliers and buses drive at that speed, it gives them a fuel saving.

Outside of Dublin, especially on the single carriageway N-roads, there are a lot of people doing on 110 km/hr on roads that really aren't suitable for speeds greater than 80 km/hr. Besides the safety aspect, this involves a lot of braking and accelerating going into and out of corners (I've driven behind these nutters and seen their brake lights), and uses way more fuel. If a proper speed limit were to be enforced on these roads you'd have increased safety and reduced emissions. It really is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

AngryHippie

Agreed, Reducing speed is a good emission saver. But on longer journeys involving motorway travel it is not as evident, as time is saved by driving faster, and time is ultimately the individuals most precious resource. (you can't buy any more of it) It is human nature to try and get there faster and a new speed limit is not going to achieve it. Designing cars that can drive in formation and take advantage of each others slip-streams at high speed would be a more productive use opf resources than making a few hundred thousand new speed limit signs and sending every household a new "rules of the road" handbook etc. food for thought.

SeanW

probe wrote: »

Why be so doctrinaire against coal? I would suggest that a phased-in CO2 tax based on g/CO2 per kWh of electricity generated.

Ah hah - an anti nuke defending coal, the default option. I was wondering how long it would take. I could also turn the question around on you and ask "why so doctrinaire against nuclear?" since it's one versus the other.

There are two major problems with your argument:
1) CO2 scrubbing doesn't do anything doesn't do anything about the 10% of CO2 that remains, the arsenic, mercury emissions, radiation, acid rain compounds like Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides, that for example force the Norwegian government to spend NOK100,000,000 on dumping alkaline substances like lime needed to keep their aquatic ecosystems alive. In addition to sequestering the CO2, you also have to find a secure place to store it for eternity ... sound familiar?

A non-fossil strategy takes care of most of that.
2) Even if the above scrubbing strategy works - and I doubt it - you need to remember that secondary activities also have to be considered. Have a look at this graph.


As you can see, Wind and Nuclear would STILL beat the coal option by a considerable margain.

Remember that one truckload of uranium displaces 26 trainloads of coal.
http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm

That has implications for mining and transport - and storage for the ~5? trainloads of waste you need to find a permanent repository for.

In the case of wind, you get what you get from it with only an initial consignment of aluminium and construction expenses.

Solar does worse because the panels are somewhat energy intesive to make.

Hydro has such a wide range because while normally clean, dams built in tropical forests can cause huge emissions from biodegrading plants in the floodplain.

oscarBravo

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Outside of Dublin, especially on the single carriageway N-roads, there are a lot of people doing on 110 km/hr on roads that really aren't suitable for speeds greater than 80 km/hr. Besides the safety aspect, this involves a lot of braking and accelerating going into and out of corners (I've driven behind these nutters and seen their brake lights), and uses way more fuel.

That's just bad driving. I was driving from Westport to Castlebar last weekend behind someone doing just that. I kept pace with them all the way and never touched my brakes - and the MPG meter rarely dropped below 35, and generally stayed above 50. I doubt they could say the same.

AngryHippie

Despite the clear benefits of nuclear energy over coal burning, It is nearly impossible to plan construction of a nuclear power plant, as no matter where you go in this country it is gonna be in someones back yard, which means that its just going to end up somewhere half suitable with a terrible TD. The trouble Eirgrid is having locating a HT line will give some idea of the ridiculous nimbyism involved. Having said that, I don't particularly want one near where I live either, which leaves Fastnet Rock, the Skelligs, Clare Island and Southern Belmullet....... s'pose you could build a nuclear power plant over there without any local objection?
It has to be wind., or tidal or wave, but Nuclear can't really be done. Unless they took the biggest kip in Europe, built a massive one there and ran it all from the one little toxic wasteland ?

bonkey

AngryHippie wrote: »

as no matter where you go in this country it is gonna be in someones back yard,

I'd have no problems living close to a nuke plant.

As it is, all nuke plants in Switzerland are pretty close to urban areas...the Goesgen one being within a mile or so of the nearest large town. I pass between the town and the station on some train-journeys...never spare a thought other than to think "oh..there it is again".

Its such a non-issue, I can't even remember which train-journey it is that passes by it...the run to Zurich or Basel, from Biel or Bern...one of those.

Come to think of it, I'd live close to a plant like that long before I'd move a comparable distance to a coal station of equivalent output...even with particle-, sulphur- and CO2-scrubbers installed.

AngryHippie

There is a fundamental difference in the mindset in Ireland to that of Switzerland. From motorways to incinerators to mobile phone masts to power lines...Anywhere you plan to build them there will be a lobby of people with objections and arguements, naysays and what ifs. I'm just talking about gettin the feckin thing built in the first place. The sad part is that despite this, the govt. seems to end up pushing through the projects that have the least benefits. The political ability is just not there to do it correctly

probe

Lennoxschips wrote: »

That would be great, but we'll see people walking on Pluto before such a thing is invented and found to work feasibly.

RWE, one of Germany's biggest CO2 polluters from their coal generation plants seems confident that they have a solution that can extract 90% of the CO2. http://www.rwe.com/generator.aspx/konzern/fue/strom/co2-freies-kraftwerk/castor/language=en/id=272122/page-co2-waesche.html

Anyway, it doesn't really matter under what I have suggested - ie a 1c tax on each kWh of electricity for each 100g of carbon emitted. If they fail to get the CO2 scrubbed, their coal generated electricity will be grossly uncompetitive against other types of plant. Electricity typically sells for around 9c per kW on the continent - if they didn't CO2 scrub their coal power, there would be another 9c in tax - ie 18c per kW. Who'd pay that? (Aside from Irish people to some state monopoly producer!).

With China commissioning a new (non scrubbed) coal plant every week, if RWE can bring scrubbing technology to real world usability with say 5 years or so, that would be acceptable in my view. Germany is well below its CO2 targets as it stands and has unused credits to sell other countries.

All this technology is of interest only in the short/medium term. It is not a long term solution.

.probe

probe

SeanW wrote: »

Ah hah - an anti nuke defending coal, the default option. I was wondering how long it would take. I could also turn the question around on you and ask "why so doctrinaire against nuclear?" since it's one versus the other.

I'm not "anti-nuke". Nuclear power is the right solution for France for the past and current periods. Nuclear power generated in IRL is not the right solution for Ireland for the period 2020+ - so there is no point in starting now.

Please see: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055223023
in relation to the short shelf life remaining in nuclear technology. It also shows how fraudulent your International Atomic Energy Agency chart is! Full life-cycle nuclear is about 100g CO2 per kWh.

There are two major problems with your argument:
1) CO2 scrubbing doesn't do anything doesn't do anything about the 10% of CO2 that remains, the arsenic, mercury emissions, radiation, acid rain compounds like Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides, that for example force the Norwegian government to spend NOK100,000,000 on dumping alkaline substances like lime needed to keep their aquatic ecosystems alive. In addition to sequestering the CO2, you also have to find a secure place to store it for eternity ... sound familiar?

No it doesn't sound familiar. I see Germany's coal to electricity lasting no more than 40 years - for many reasons including (a) they only have about 40 years underground storage space for CO2 and (b) Poland and South Africa aren't going to be exporting coal forever and (c) while Germany has about 80 years of coal reserves, they won't be able to get people to go down the mines to extract it and (d) technology will have rolled on.

The big threats to coal and nuclear aside from the finite quantities available are solar as it gets cheaper and more productive per m2 of collector, proliferation of wind generation capacity including new designs, wave and tidal, the electric car becoming commonplace and the massive energy storage capacity of millions of electric cars networked in parking mode, etc etc etc.

Solar does worse because the panels are somewhat energy intesive to make.

New solar is turning into a printing press mode, with rolls of solar collector fabric.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54874653&postcount=1

do you read anything I post - other than alleged "anti nuke" stuff? :-)

Coal is a short-term solution. Nuclear is a short term solution. Given the nasty long trail of dangerous waste from nuclear, it is the least appropriate for a country looking around for new energy sources in 2008. Especially a small country. Especially a small, country with a zillion kWh of wind, wave, and tidal energy to harness and trade with the rest of Europe. Buying back some non-green energy in return until the national car fleet has reached a critical mass of battery and/or H2 vehicles to provide more storage than would be needed, even with a greatly expanded population, and energy consumption patterns growing beyond your wildest dreams!

.probe

D'Peoples Voice

AngryHippie wrote: »

The trouble Eirgrid is having locating a HT line will give some idea of the ridiculous nimbyism involved.

Yes and this will become more common,
people don't object if they run the cables underground like in Dublin city,
but Eirgrid( ESBNetworks) don't want this as the maintenance costs can be excessive - that is, trying to get at a particualr part of a cable underground costs a lot more because of the digging and filling in, much more expensive than accessing an overhead pylon.
So it's difficult to know who to blame.

SeanW

probe wrote: »

I'm not "anti-nuke". Nuclear power is the right solution for France for the past and current periods. Nuclear power generated in IRL is not the right solution for Ireland for the period 2020+ - so there is no point in starting now.

Perhaps not, but an interconnector to France, or if we're really adventurous, Iceland (where they've got a ****load of hydro and geothermal capability) IS the right solution.

If we went for a strategy of Toshiba "Micro Nukes" we could have the first ones operating here in under 10 years.

Not that I'm advocating that either - those interconnectors would be more politically feasable - but I'm saying there's no serious not to go nuclear, and that we shouldn't listen to people who think "won't somebody ANYBODY please think of little Natalia" is a credible, logical argument.

Please see: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055223023
in relation to the short shelf life remaining in nuclear technology. It also shows how fraudulent your International Atomic Energy Agency chart is! Full life-cycle nuclear is about 100g CO2 per kWh.

Studies can show anything, I haven't had time to read the whole thing in detail, but it's a bit fraudulent to just give one figure, since there can be a range, depending on the fuel type used, the technology of the plant etc.
Some things I doubt they considered:
A) The U.S. stands ready to undo the insane "no reporocessing" stance from Jimmy Carter's era. That will turn decades of waste, into decades of fuel.
New reactor types, such as the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) are 16% more fuel efficient than previous generation reactors AND have a 60 year expected lifespan.
C) If a small market like Ireland uses Pebble Bed Modular Reactors PBMR or other nuclear battery designs close to where the demand is, they can cut waste by up to 66%. Greenpeace advocates local fossil-fuel-fired CHP systems on the basis that traditional large plants lose 33% of their energy up smoke and steam stacks, and another 33% in transmission over long distances. With local PBMRs, you cut a lot of that out.
D) Mining companies have only recently begun to look for more Uranium - so they will probably find some high grade ores. Lets hope they don't run into lots of Eamon Ryans, or nuclear energy may well end up the victim of "starve the horse then kill it because it can't pull" economics. Which is primarily what his kind does anyway.
E) Thorium? We will be switching to that when the Uranium becomes too expensive/inefficient.

Poland and South Africa aren't going to be exporting coal forever and

Then there's always the Ukraine, they have immense reserves, so does Germany (like open-pit brown coal mines in Saxony).

while Germany has about 80 years of coal reserves, they won't be able to get people to go down the mines to extract it

Do you seriously believe that?

the electric car becoming commonplace and the massive energy storage capacity of millions of electric cars networked in parking mode, etc etc etc.

And this is what I find the least credible.

I had a look over the EV1 - GMs abandoned electric car project, from "Who Killed The Electric Car" and Wikipedia etc. Seems that project relied on a number of unique factors to work, 1) short range (I think it was <100 miles) 2) Small vehicle size 3) Warm weather for electric storage 4) Special tyres. Basically, it was most useful as a SoCal commuter vehicle.

The technology may well have moved on but to assume that we're going to switch to electric cars any time soon isn't really realistic, since you can not now "drop in" an electric engine into for example, a Toyota Corolla or VW Polo, and get petro-fuel type performance all over the world.

Even so, this vision of electric cars backing a renewables grid doesn't make sense. Because even with advanced power storage technology, you're not really going to get a lot more energy into the car than the owner needs.
Secondly, you are assuming that the owners of the car will not need them when the wind drops off, or worse, aren't looking to charge up depleted batteries at that time. Because someone's going to be seriously screwed.
Thirdly, assuming electric cars do take off, say a prospective electric car buyer walks into a garage. One car costs say €30,000, and could have its fuel sucked out of it at any time by the Grid Controller. The other, is a few hundred, or thousand cheaper and simply draws power to charge the battery. Which one do you think the average car buyer is going to go for?

I thought so.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Thirdly, assuming electric cars do take off, say a prospective electric car buyer walks into a garage. One car costs say €30,000, and could have its fuel sucked out of it at any time by the Grid Controller. The other, is a few hundred, or thousand cheaper and simply draws power to charge the battery. Which one do you think the average car buyer is going to go for?

I thought so.

I've posted before about new batteries that take 5 minutes to charge to 90%. - About the same time it takes to queue at the checkout if it's busy. And you could charge overnight too so you wouldn't need to wait 5 minutes most days. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/toshiba-launche.html

I've posted before about the clean up cost of Nuclear in the UK. It's £1 per installed Watt. ( £1m per MW ) how is this to be paid over the remaining life of the current reactors and still have them run economically http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm £72Bn
http://www.uic.com.au/nip84.htm 69GW


I've posted before about pebble reactor and how the costs were estimated at 15 cents to 25 cents per kWh. And that's with Toshiba picking up all the environmental impact costs and type approval which would normally be spread over a production run. It's a loss leader and still very expensive. http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/122604/loc_20041226003.shtml

Capt'n Midnight

Passive heating and superinsulation would reduce our need for more power stations.

The big problem with compressed air is that as the pressure drops you loose efficiency

In Germany they have gas turbine power plants. Most of the energy produced in the turbine is used to compress the air intake. So they have an interesting way of storing energy. Off peak electricity is used to compress air in old mines. Then they use this compressed air to feed the gas turbines so you get higher efficiency as you don't need to compress the air. Done since 1978 at Huntorf. It uses fossil fuel but gets ~3 times as much energy out.


http://q-m.org/academic/ise2grp/energystorage_report/node7.html

In a normal gas turbine, as much as two thirds of the energy produced by the power turbine is consumed by the compressor. This means that a 300 MW plant actually produces 100 MW of net output while 200 MW is consumed by the compressor. If compression is carried out at a different time to when power generation is needed, that is, by CAES, the peak power which the gas turbine can generate is increased by this amount. Hence additional power production capacity is not required.

so you also save on capital cost because you can get the same power from a turbine 1/3th the size.Depending on how many long you compress compared to how long you run the trubine you could also get away with a smaller compressor.

Since you get mines in mountains perhaps you could use a wind powered compressor and save on generator / motor combination. Just have a compressed air pipe from the windmill to the store.

SeanW

Like I said, electric car technology may well have moved on since the days of the EV1. But it would want to have.

What I took issue with, was this grand vision of Probes' that one day everyone's cars will backup a renewable-powered grid. It sounds like a bit of a flight of fancy.

The UK nuclear programme has never been a model of efficiency - most of its reactors are ancient MAGNOX and Advanced Gas Reactors, and if they haven't been charging the decommissioning costs off against the sales of electricity since the 1970s, maybe even the 1960s when many of these plants opened, it's way too late to start now and expect to make up the defecit. It's simply not going to happen.

France on the other hand, does quite a roaring trade selling its nuclear power to its neighbors, and the prices includes a pro-rata charge-off of decommissioning costs. With its newest reactor having an expected lifespan of 60 years, it will have plenty of time to pay for its decommissioning.

Similar story in the U.S. where the nuclear operators pay a bond at licensing time to pay for decomissioning, and a levy is charged on the output of the plants over their lifetime - unlike those UK things many of which have less than 10, some less than 5.

As for your energy storage pic its interesting - but again the question arises - are there enough old mines and sealed off caverns to do this on a wide scale?

probe

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps not, but an interconnector to France, or if we're really adventurous, Iceland (where they've got a ****load of hydro and geothermal capability) IS the right solution.

While Icelandic electricity is about as green as one can get, it is a poor alternative for Ireland:

1) Donegal to the Southern Iceland coast is c 1,100 km. Donegal has no serious grid connectivity with the rest of Ireland. Cork to France is 460 km, well within HVDC low loss undersea cable technology range.
2) Iceland doesn’t need Ireland’s wind energy – it has all the electricity it needs – despite being one of the highest consumers of electricity in the world, per capita. There is therefore no market for a two-way trade in electricity. If large scale wind energy is to be viable in Ireland, there must be a market outside of Ireland for the surplus.
3) Ireland has the capability to produce 20 to 30 GW/h of wind, wave and tidal electricity at peak output. Ireland needs about 6 GW/h to meet peak demand. 20 GW/h feed of carbon-free electricity will be a very sexy product to sell sur le continent, especially when carbon taxes start to bite, gas and oil supplies get more expensive and in shorter supply, uranium gets more difficult to mine and more energy intensive to refine. The European grid would have no problem chewing it up. Similarly, the continental grid would have no problem delivering 4 or 5 GW/h of electricity back to Ireland, during the odd periods when Ireland is windless and waveless. With a large installed capacity base of wind turbines in Ireland, the country would still have 2 to 3 GW of working capacity even on a quiet day.
4) When it is windy in one region, it is less windy in another. If you review the HIRLAM weather model wind data for Europe at any point in time (used by IE (Met Eireann) as well as their opposite numbers in IS, FI, DK, NO, NL, SE and ES) or Switzerland’s COSMO numerical weather model, you will see that the areas of heavy wind move around the place.

If you go to the Spanish meteo HIRLAM website http://www.inm.es/web/infmet/modnum/hirlam.html . Click on “Passada” “00” or “12”; “Superficie”, “Temp/Viento” and your choice of time “H+12” or whatever to view a wind map of Europe. The Swiss COSMO model maps of Europe are available here: http://www.meteosuisse.admin.ch/web/en/weather/models/forecasts.html


Nuclear power generation in Ireland is about as appropriate for Ireland as it would be for Iceland. The country doesn’t need it, and observing the difficulty of installing a natural gas pipeline in MO, you haven’t a hope in hell of putting your pet nuclear installation anywhere on the island. You are wasting your time! :-)

Even so, this vision of electric cars backing a renewables grid doesn't make sense. Because even with advanced power storage technology, you're not really going to get a lot more energy into the car than the owner needs.

Why not? Keeping an electric car charged is not like visiting a gas station to fuel up. You arrive home at night, and you plug it in. Smart metering might decide not to charge it up until after 22h00. But if you are going out later that evening – you tell Mr Smart meter to charge it up now – which may cost you more than if you waited, and let the system decided.

As the car owner, you will decide how much power you will make available to the network to draw down. If you have a 20km journey next day, you are not going to let them take more out of your battery than the 20km drive will consume + some margin in reserve. The system will have to accommodate you – otherwise you won’t participate.

The capacity of an electric car battery is enormous relative to the electricity needs of a family home. Network up all these parked cars, and it gives you a huge, secure, national electricity storage system.

In any event it is just part of a solution.

The fossil/nuclear mindset is stuck in the past – we need to plan creatively for the future.

.probe

Capt'n Midnight

We now have batteries that will charge up to 90% of capacity in 5 minutes so if you forget to charge overnight you could do so at a garage.

If every car had a smart meter and some sort of inductive coupler , or a pantograph that reaches up, you could top up the car by 10-30% while waiting at the lights or crawling in congestion points. ESB networks would handle the points, while you would buy your electiricity off your current priovider , ESB or Airtricity or whoever. Power would only be supplied on Red and when no movement detected underneath. Could be tried out on buses first. The main thing is that you could keep the battery weight low since you don't need to go all day on one charge.

For journeys outside the city you'd have laybys every so often in case you really need to top up. CCTV camera to film you and your plates to keep people honest.

The car would do the voltage coversion to whatever it needs, the standards being the physical coupling and voltages would be the same for all.


We live on an island, so ultra long journeys are impossible.

SeanW

The infrasturcture you're talking about would cost billions, and be a maintenance nightmare. Far better for everyone to stick a few extra batteries in their cars than have to refuel every 5 minutes.

You've also forgotten about the people who take their cars to Holyhead and Roscoff for European travel.

Capt'n Midnight

The point is that it is technically possible to have cars that could refuel at the traffic lights, you would never need to go near a garage. You wouldn't need to do it at every set of lights.

roads are already costing us billions and the Koyoto tax will cost hundreds of millions a year,

You could it with a diesel-hybrid, diesel on the open road, electric in town. Most traffic in Dublin and other cities is bottlenecked at some junctions so if you were to do the canal/ NCR and the M50 interchanges and bridges you have the guts of it. Economy would be twice that of disel and no pollution in the city.

As time goes on more charging points would be setup.


The key is smart meters on the cars and the charging point so you only get electricity if you can pay for it/RFID authentication type thing , so no free loaders. Could also be done in car parks too, and McDonalds dive ins.

The system would also be used by buses and delivery vans.

Maybe you could do the LUAS like this, trams that charge at some stops - hard to know if the overhead lines or batteries are cheaper over full life cycle

SeanW

Plug in hybrids running on biodiesel would accomplish this without any of the expense.

SeanW

probe wrote: »

While Icelandic electricity is about as green as one can get, it is a poor alternative for Ireland:

1) Donegal to the Southern Iceland coast is c 1,100 km. Donegal has no serious grid connectivity with the rest of Ireland. Cork to France is 460 km, well within HVDC low loss undersea cable technology range.
2) Iceland doesn’t need Ireland’s wind energy – it has all the electricity it needs – despite being one of the highest consumers of electricity in the world, per capita. There is therefore no market for a two-way trade in electricity. If large scale wind energy is to be viable in Ireland, there must be a market outside of Ireland for the surplus.
3) Ireland has the capability to produce 20 to 30 GW/h of wind, wave and tidal electricity at peak output. Ireland needs about 6 GW/h to meet peak demand. 20 GW/h feed of carbon-free electricity will be a very sexy product to sell sur le continent, especially when carbon taxes start to bite, gas and oil supplies get more expensive and in shorter supply, uranium gets more difficult to mine and more energy intensive to refine. The European grid would have no problem chewing it up. Similarly, the continental grid would have no problem delivering 4 or 5 GW/h of electricity back to Ireland, during the odd periods when Ireland is windless and waveless. With a large installed capacity base of wind turbines in Ireland, the country would still have 2 to 3 GW of working capacity even on a quiet day.
4) When it is windy in one region, it is less windy in another. If you review the HIRLAM weather model wind data for Europe at any point in time (used by IE (Met Eireann) as well as their opposite numbers in IS, FI, DK, NO, NL, SE and ES) or Switzerland’s COSMO numerical weather model, you will see that the areas of heavy wind move around the place.

Some of this may be true, but remember hydroelectricity has the benefits of not only being green, but very easy to control. Which makes it a perfect backup for wind-power generation.

Ireland, in partnership with Iceland could have a power exchange agreement - i.e. during periods of high wind, Ireland sends wind energy to Iceland, which they use while they close the gates on their dams, holding more water in reserve. When our wind drops off, Iceland opens its hydroelectric floodgates and produces a rush of power for both Iceland and Ireland.

and observing the difficulty of installing a natural gas pipeline in MO, you haven’t a hope in hell of putting your pet nuclear installation anywhere on the island. You are wasting your time! :-)

Yes. because the likes of Greenpeace has everyone convinced that the evil Sellafield nuclear boogeymonster is going steal their children at midnight. I concede that it is very unlikely we will ever use nuclear power because of public opposition. I am merely pointing out that there is no scientific or technological reason why we cannot do so.

In the interim, I am suggesting that we embrace Nuclear power via an "Irish solution" (a.k.a let someone else provide it for us) the way we do with abortion clinics, air force defense etc, as the most practical way to get a clean electric supply quickly.

The capacity of an electric car battery is enormous relative to the electricity needs of a family home. Network up all these parked cars, and it gives you a huge, secure, national electricity storage system.

I remain to be convinced but we'll agree to disagree.

The fossil/nuclear mindset is stuck in the past – we need to plan creatively for the future.

Not necessarily since every country, saving perhaps Iceland, is still using one or the other (or both) - and I've proven that it's a choice - and every sensible energy analysis I've ever seen suggests further growth in demand for energy, primarily for coal. You admitted this yourself about China, as I had proven something similar about Germany. The "fossil/nuclear mindset" as you call it, is the most realistic outlook for Planet Earth in 2008. And when it comes to choosing between those two, for me, there is simply no contest.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote:

Some of this may be true, but remember hydroelectricity has the benefits of not only being green, but very easy to control. Which makes it a perfect backup for wind-power generation.

Agree but most of the rivers here that could be used , are. Pumped storage is the only way for most temperate countries to increase hydro. The big one in Wales has a head of 500m, so to do it properly you need something similar.

Ireland, in partnership with Iceland could have a power exchange agreement - i.e. during periods of high wind, Ireland sends wind energy to Iceland, which they use while they close the gates on their dams, holding more water in reserve. When our wind drops off, Iceland opens its hydroelectric floodgates and produces a rush of power for both Iceland and Ireland.

Exporting wind energy to Iceland - sure we could export photovoltaic to Portugal and Spain too.
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/~cannon/medports/Reykjavik/Hc_wi.html

The prevailing winds are from the East quadrant. Winds can be quite gusty. Winds from the N and SW quadrants are also observed quite frequently. Average wind speeds � 16 kt.
...
# Winter is generally characterized by deep, rapidly moving low-pressure systems transiting the North Atlantic. These systems can occur as frequently as 4 times a week and move as fast as 40 kt.

# There are approximately 12 major storms a year that significantly affect all of Iceland. Most of these are in the winter months.

Seriously in the unlikely event Iceland needed an interconnector why would they choose to us instead of Scotland ?

SeanW

I am suggesting that it would be in Ireland's interests, more than so than Iceland's, to look at interconnection. Since hydroelectric dams can easily act as either a baseline provider or renewables-backup, and Iceland has a whole load of them, it would be in Ireland's interest to look to get a piece of that action as a backup mechanism for wind farms.

In any case, I still think it's time to consider all nonfossil options, especially in light of the political and stability difficulties with the places we're getting many of our hydrocarbons from. Like Russia which is backsliding into Stalinism and desperately trying to pull countries like Poland in with it. In addition to the likes of Saudi Arabia, which uses its oil wealth to - among other things - set up extreme Wahibbi Islamic schools in the West that teach their students that "Jews are apes and pigs" etc.

I think its time to consider all moves towards nonfossil energy, even probe's questionable "networked electric cars" stuff.

probe

SeanW wrote: »

Ireland, in partnership with Iceland could have a power exchange agreement - i.e. during periods of high wind, Ireland sends wind energy to Iceland, which they use while they close the gates on their dams, holding more water in reserve. When our wind drops off, Iceland opens its hydroelectric floodgates and produces a rush of power for both Iceland and Ireland.

By all means do that, if it is the most cost effective way to achieve “pumped storage”. Iceland has about 1.2 GW of hydro capacity – but it is still not a “two-way street” in terms of electricity trading. Ireland would be using Iceland as a 1 GW battery over a 1,100 km cable – and to achieve same, would potentially dislocate a large proportion of Iceland’s hydroelectric generation capacity, while they jump to “Ireland’s tune” – which is the wind’s tune. We’d also have to fund the installation of large pumping capacity, as one assumes that most of Iceland’s hydro is a “one way street” – not designed for pumped storage. Ireland is better off concentrating connectivity to a large energy market, where blips in supply/demand will be a drop in the ocean.

When winds are low in Ireland, Iceland would have to make all or a large portion of its hydro capacity available to Ireland at the drop of a hat. Even a 500 MW HVDC cable to Iceland would cost about €1bn – you’d get 1 GW of connectivity to mainland Europe for about the same money. It would be a very material commitment for Iceland - a country of 300,000 people.

It would probably be cheaper and more energy efficient to create pumped storage in Ireland. All you need is a mountain lake (existing or man made) or reservoir and a fat pipe down to a lower altitude with a two-way pump/generator system, and temporary water storage at the bottom. The same water gets re-used over and over, and it can deliver power at the touch of a button with no “spinning reserve”. It doesn’t have to have long staying power – the main benefit of pumped storage is that it provides electricity within 20 seconds or so, when another system fails – until such time as slower to start up backup gets online and fully operational.

.probe

Capt'n Midnight

probe wrote:

Even a 500 MW HVDC cable to Iceland would cost about €1bn – you’d get 1 GW of connectivity to mainland Europe for about the same money.

Actually you could run that 1,100km cable along the english channel to north sea, all shallow water, so you'd interconnect loads of people to each other from denmark germany, holland, belgium to france and to wind farms at sea and we'd tap in to the UK who'd tap into it

since undersea cables have higher losses and are more expensive than overhead ones we'd link in to NI and they'd link to Scotland

maniac101

probe wrote: »

It would probably be cheaper and more energy efficient to create pumped storage in Ireland. All you need is a mountain lake (existing or man made) or reservoir and a fat pipe down to a lower altitude with a two-way pump/generator system, and temporary water storage at the bottom. The same water gets re-used over and over, and it can deliver power at the touch of a button with no “spinning reserve”. It doesn’t have to have long staying power – the main benefit of pumped storage is that it provides electricity within 20 seconds or so, when another system fails – until such time as slower to start up backup gets online and fully operational.

.probe

It wouldn't be the cheap solution, or the most environmentally sound either. When Turlough Hill pumped storage station was built (292MW), it was the biggest and most expensive engineering project ever undertaken in the state. The cost of carrying out a similar project today would be prohibitive. More significantly, if a similar project were to be proposed today it wouldn't survive the rigorous environmental impact assessment process that it would be subjected to. A lot of damage was done to the environment in Ireland in the last century as a result of large hydro-electric schemes. Hopefully we've learned from these mistakes and won't repeat them again.

Local storage at wind farms and interconnection with larger systems, such as mainland Europe or Nordex, remain the best methods of making the most of our wind resource.

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actually you could run that 1,100km cable along the english channel to north sea, all shallow water, so you'd interconnect loads of people to each other from denmark germany, holland, belgium to france and to wind farms at sea and we'd tap in to the UK who'd tap into it

since undersea cables have higher losses and are more expensive than overhead ones we'd link in to NI and they'd link to Scotland

The Norway Netherlands cable http://www.abb.com/cawp/gad02181/8c5558c304d0eb13c1256f77003a33a1.aspx cost about EUR 700 million for 580 km X 0.7 GW capacity, using 450 kV DC. If they ran that cable over land via Sweden, Denmark, and Germany to NL – it would probably have cost 2 billion and would have far higher energy losses compared with an underwater HVDC solution.

There are three problems with running connectivity via GB:

1) The British grid is old fashioned, high loss AC based and they have almost zero connectivity to the mainland. The usual problem – “fog on the channel, the continent cut off”.

2) Britain is heading for a major energy crisis itself over the next 5-10 years. Its own nuclear plant is way past its sell-by date. Scotland’s gas has about another five years to run before it gets close to near complete depletion. Their second line of gas supply is Norway. Norway too is running low in gas reserves – and has officially put GB on notice of this fact. Norway has about 10 years of gas supply left, before supplies get tight from that source. Britain’s traditional source of electricity was killed off in the 1970s (coal). Britain has poor diplomatic relations with Russia – and in any event Russia has only about 22 years of surplus gas to export. Britain has no nuclear technology of its own. It is going to have to join a very long queue of orders at the door of French nuclear plant suppliers to get kit. And of course nuclear is only a short term solution.

3) While they have talked about large wind deployment, they are too close to Ireland to complement Ireland’s wind energy output. The “p” of low wind levels in IRL and GB at the same time is too high to treat the British electricity system as a backup for IRL. When electricity supplies get seriously tight in GB (because of a lack of raw material – eg gas, oil etc) they can’t be relied on as a transit country to act as a route to supply IRL with continental electricity, when the wind isn’t blowing “over the british isles”

There is no green alternative for Ireland aside from serious direct connectivity to France. The NW region of France could absorb all the green energy Ireland could export - and France would have no problem dumping the surplus from its own system into Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, and Spain, etc.

As an aside, shallowness of water is not really an issue – there are several relatively fragile fibre optic cables running between Ireland and North America which run across a very deep ocean (over 5 km deep) – and they are a lot safer down there than they are within range of a ship’s anchor – or overground where high winds or flying objects might bring them down. There have been several under sea fibre optic cable problems in the Middle East affecting internet and other telecom services over the past few weeks (probably caused by shipping) in shallow water.

.probe

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

Fuel cells are still fairly ineffieient, the main advantage is weight which is why they were used on the apollo moon missions. Hydrogen is very light, but when you try to concentrate it, it gets heavy, steel tanks or hydrides.

Fuel cells are about the lightest batteries we have though. Cheaper Lithium would be good.
Methanol fuel cell would be handy for storage
But a way of re charging more often would reduce the need for extended life

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
Fuel cells are still fairly ineffieient, the main advantage is weight which is why they were used on the apollo moon missions. Hydrogen is very light, but when you try to concentrate it, it gets heavy, steel tanks or hydrides.

Fuel cells are about the lightest batteries we have though. Cheaper Lithium would be good.
Methanol fuel cell would be handy for storage
But a way of re charging more often would reduce the need for extended life

The Danes are not only into wind technology, they are also working on H2 storage - with a system that offers to store hydrogen in recyclable tablet form, with a similar mass/weight/energy ratio to gasoline. No heavy steel tanks.

While Ireland wastes the nation's human resources servicing multi-national companies, countries like Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden are busy creating technologies to solve problems that have a global market.

Danish Examples:

http://www.amminex.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=117
http://novozymes.com/en/MainStructure/SectionMainRethinkTomorrow
http://www.vestas.com/

.probe

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

The Italian catalyst manufacturer Acta has proposed using hydrazine as an alternative to hydrogen in fuel cells. The chief benefit of using hydrazine is that it can produce over 200mW/cm2 more than a similar hydrogen cell without the need to use expensive platinum catalysts. As the fuel is liquid at room temperature, it can be handled and stored more easily than hydrogen. By storing the hydrazine in a tank full of a double-bonded carbon-oxygen carbonyl, the fuel reacts and forms a safe solid called hydrazone. By then flushing the tank with warm water, the liquid hydrazine hydrate is released. Handling liquid fuel is much safer than handling hydrogen gas, and the liquid has a higher electromotive force of 1.56V compared to 1.23V for hydrogen. Hydrazine breaks down in the cell to form nitrogen and hydrogen which bonds with oxygen, releasing water.[15]

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

The out of control US spy satellite due to hit earth over the next few weeks is tanked up with hydrazine.

Contact with the toxic fuel hydrazine can cause coughing, irritated throat and lungs, convulsions, tremors or seizures, and long-term exposure can damage the liver...

.probe

Capt'n Midnight

yes
but think of the mpg

the more research into other types of fuel cells apart from hydrogen the better, the conversion of fuel into hydrogen is where much of the inefficiencies lie. Having a fuel that could be used directly would be better.

hydrogen from wind is acceptable mainly because it's free,

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

yes
but think of the mpg

the more research into other types of fuel cells apart from hydrogen the better, the conversion of fuel into hydrogen is where much of the inefficiencies lie. Having a fuel that could be used directly would be better.

hydrogen from wind is acceptable mainly because it's free,

Agreed. Probe is all for technology abuse. Push things to the limit. Energy efficiency/conversion ratios move way down the scale of priorities when the source of the energy is clean.

.probe

SeanW

No faults with that post, I'm starting to like you the problem is of course, which of todays operating techologies are the cleanest (with the caveat of also needing to be reliable and cost effective)?

I'm all for research into improved renewable technologies and storage mechanisms. I just think that until such time as - if ever - this yields fruit, we need to seriously re-examine our objection to nuclear fission power.

However, I would hope that new car technology moves away from hydrogen - mostly because of the road safety aspect - supercompressed hydrogen is as dangerous if not more so, in adverse conditions, than petroleum gasoline. One of the many advantages for people switching to biodiesel now, is that biodiesel has a crazily high flashpoint in temperature and is not explosive. It's also non-toxic, unlike petroleum fuels or hydrazine.

Some kind of outright electricity storage, like improved battery technology, would be better not only from a road safety point of view, but a power-efficiency standpoint. But I seriously doubt either would allow for the pool of grid-backup car setup you're interested in.

Particularly if we went with the other proposal mentioned here, which is to have electric refuelling points all over the place.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote:

I'm all for research into improved renewable technologies and storage mechanisms. I just think that until such time as - if ever - this yields fruit, we need to seriously re-examine our objection to nuclear fission power.

So far fission reactors use only 0.3% of the fuel fed into them, the rest is highly radioactive waste which will be dangerous for longer than our civilisation has lasted.

many current fission reactors use highly pressurised vessels , corrosion problems have been found in them. one example here is that no one thought boric acid would be a problem, had it been tested properly then at least one reactor wouldn't have had bulges on the outside of the pressure vessel. a design flaw, that was unchecked for nearly 25 years