[Articles] ESB urges govt to back electric transport

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0403/energy.html

ESB urges govt to back electric transport
Thursday, 3 April 2008 14:11

ESB Chief Executive Padraig McManus has urged the Government to promote electricity use in transport.

He told the Irish Management Institute's annual conference in Enniskerry that electricity is the cleanest and most efficient energy at the point of use.

He said that 85% of railways in Belgium are electrified, while the figure in Ireland is 3%.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0403/imi.html

ESB chief urges use of electric cars
Thursday, 3 April 2008 14:29

ESB chief executive Padraig McManus has urged the Government to promote electricity use in transport.

Speaking at the Irish Management Institute's annual conference today in Enniskerry, Padraig McManus said that electricity is the cleanest and most efficient energy at the point of use, and we need to use more of it.

He called on Government to support the introduction of electrified cars, saying that to recharge every car in Ireland daily would use about 2,000mw of electricity. Current capacity is over 5,000mw. The cars would be charged at night when demand is low.

Mr McManus said the Irish transport sector is 270% above where it needs to be in terms of getting the reductions Europe has set, even though the country is below the European average in terms of car ownership. This would reduce the sector's carbon emissions.

'We have got to try to produce electricity without CO2 and at the same time meet the demand of the market place,' stated Mr McManus.

He said that 3% of Irish railways are electrified, while in Belgium 85% are electrified. He added that while ESB has not yet spoken to Irish Rail it would be prepared to talk to transport businesses about how electricity could be supplied.

Mr McManus also mentioned the high price of oil and other natural resources. When he was appointed ESB CEO in 2002, oil cost $25 a barrel. Today it is at $98, having been over $100 a barrel several times this year.

He said the market determines the end-price of electricity, but that prices are likely to go up this year if fuel prices do not fall.

'Unless we see some amelioration in prices this will feed into higher energy prices by the end of the year,' he said.

In a strategy announced last week, ESB set out several milestones, one of which was the cutting out of carbon emissions by 2035 to zero. It will also be out of oil generation by 2012. The coal fired station at Moneypoint will be burning clean coal in the future and 33% of ESB's generation will be from renewables by 2020.

ESB has a turnover of over €2 billion euro. It has 1.8 million customers and is one of the biggest service providers in Ireland. It is 95% owned by the Government, with the remaining 5% owned by an empolyees' share ownership trust.

Chris_533976

I must say I find it hilarious that ESB are recommending the government use ELECTRIC trains

I wonder why???

Run_to_da_hills

Chris_533976 wrote: »

I must say I find it hilarious that ESB are recommending the government use ELECTRIC trains

I wonder why???

I they are trying to shut the gate after the horse has left, CIE has recently splashed out well over €400 million on 22000 series diesel railcar sets for mainline use, these can be expected to last at least another 30 years .

BendiBus

Doesn't DART get its power from Viridian?

I they are trying to shut the gate after the horse has left

It's never too late. Post-interconnector there will be a lot more electric trains running around the Greater Dublin Area.

My only issue with electric public transport (and it's certainly not a show stopper) is that peak commuting demand coincides with peak electricity demand, i.e. 5-7pm. While electric cars will charge overnight, trains create a high demand just when the power companies least need it. I suspect this also means PT companies end up paying more for electricity? Thus making electricity less feasible from a commercial point of view by deferring the point at which electric traction becomes the economic choice.

Ham'nd'egger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I they are trying to shut the gate after the horse has left, CIE has recently splashed out well over €400 million on 22000 series diesel railcar sets for mainline use, these can be expected to last at least another 30 years .

I would love to know just how if they will also pay for an electric network to power these electric trains that don't yet exist? It goes without saying that it would be a lot cleaner but the set up costs for same will be prohibitive.

paulm17781

It's only cleaner when the source is cleaner. We still depend on fossil fuels for most electricity. Until this changes electric cars and trains won't make much difference.

Nostradamus

In the 1930's the ESB offered to electrify the Irish rail network for free as they had so much extra capacity at the time. The visionaries in the GSR boardroom probably scoffed back then too. Then Dev started an economic war with the UK and most of the Irish rail network ran on a limited or suspended service. The "puff-puff" "choo-choos" had no coal.

The same dynamic is there again today, albeit for different reasons. Ireland is too dependent on oil imports. If the tankers stopped arriving at the North wall the only public transport which could still operate would be the LUAS and DART.

All it takes is the USA to start a war against Iran which the neo-con there are salivating for.

My paranoia aside, I can see a huge growth in electric railways in Ireland following the completion of the Interconnector. It makes total sense for so many reasons. I suspect the reason why Irish Rail has a policy of lowering tracks when they renew them these days is with future electrification in mind.

The ESB are looking for revenue here, but it's for a good reason at the end of the day.

Ham'nd'egger

Nostradamus wrote: »

In the 1930's the EBS offered to electrify the Irish rail network for free as they had so much extra capacity at the time. The visionaries in the GSR boardroom probably scoffed back then too. Then Dev started an economic war with the UK and most of the Irish rail network ran on a limited or suspended service. The "puff-puff" "choo-choos" had no coal.

The same dynamic is there again today, albeit for different reasons. Ireland is too dependent on oil imports. If the container ships stopped arriving at the North wall the only public transport which could still operate would be the LUAS and DART.

All it takes is the USA to start a war against Iran which the neo-con there are salivating for.

My paranoia aside, I can see a huge growth in electric railways in Ireland following the completion of the Interconnector. It makes total sense for so many reasons. I suspect the reason why Irish Rail has a policy of lowering tracks when they renew them these days is with future electrification in mind.

The EBS are looking for revenue here, but it's for a good reason at the end of the day.

It is the way forward but as ever, who is going to pay for it?

BendiBus

paulm17781 wrote: »

It's only cleaner when the source is cleaner.

The internal combustion engine is so inefficient that even electricity generated primarily by fossil fuel works out cleaner. Remember to take into account all the wasted heat from a car engine, plus all the time a city-based car spends burning fuel while stationary in traffic.

paulm17781

BendiBus wrote: »

The internal combustion engine is so inefficient that even electricity generated primarily by fossil fuel works out cleaner. Remember to take into account all the wasted heat from a car engine, plus all the time a city-based car spends burning fuel while stationary in traffic.

Oh no doubt. It's just electric rail / cars are seen as a huge step forward where it is by no means carbon neutral which people often assume it is.

HydeRoad

The thing is, that the infrastructure for electric rail can be put in now, while the debate about fossil v nuclear v whatever is carried on. At some point in the future, cleaner electricity production can be utilised seamlessly if it is ever introduced. The internal combustion engine remains an internal combustion engine.

Nostradamus

Hamndegger wrote: »

It is the way forward but as ever, who is going to pay for it?

The EU has a Trillion Euro war chest for development of sustainability projects at national level.

If Ireland cannot make a case for getting a few billion of this to electrify our rail network, then the Government (mainly the Greens) aren't asking hard enough. With Ireland's massive population forecasts, geographic location and energy dependency this give us a very good case indeed.

HydeRoad

There are great advancements in design, new ideas, unbelieveable technological advances. Ireland could be a showcase for some of these developments. We should have a minister out there, investigating these, bringing some projects back home. Get ourselves in the international media, showcasing initiatives in greener and more efficient transport provision.

Instead, we are in the international spotlight for all the wrong reasons, the beginner's guide how not to do things.

How can we do it for nothing, and make a pig's ear into the bargain?

mackerski

to recharge every car in Ireland daily would use about 2,000mw of electricity

2,000 milliwatts? Or megawatt-hours? Iffy journalism...

murphaph

This all ties in with the ESB's commitment of last week to be a carbon neutral producer of electricity by 2035, with an interim commitment to reduce carbon emissions by half by 2020. If the ESB are succesful they may be the world leaders in renawable generation. The ESB have always been one of Ireland's jewels, despite the likes of Dev. It's a shame those early days of the Free State when optimism was at such a high level to allow the construction of Ardnacrusha are long gone.

If the ESB have their way, Ireland will have little or no dependence on imported fuel for electricity generation. That is a fantastic goal and one which everyone should support. The natural extension to this plan (which the ESB expects to cost 22Bn) is to expand electricity use into one of the most polluting and oil dependent sectors-transport.

Ireland is a small country with a very small rail network. All of it should be electrified in time.

paulm17781

@murphaph, totally agree. The ESB have always been ahead of their time. My grandfather told me some of the communications things they were developing in the 50s / 60s, the sort of things that are commercially available and "groundbreaking" these days.

Anyway, I think if they can become carbon neutral it would be fantastic. Mix trains and cars with that and we would pretty much stop emitting carbon. That would be a world first. I just hope they can actually reach that level.

maniac101

murphaph wrote: »

If the ESB have their way, Ireland will have little or no dependence on imported fuel for electricity generation. That is a fantastic goal and one which everyone should support.

The ESB intend to complement their wind generation resource with open cycle gas plants. These plants will still require imported gas. By 2025 they hope to build a new coal plant at Moneypoint. This, they hope, will use Clean Coal Technology and will therefore have lower GHG emissions than the current one. Again, coal will continue to be imported. The ESB are under no illusions that this country will be still dependent on imported fuel for electricity generation for the long term.

BendiBus wrote: »

It's never too late. Post-interconnector there will be a lot more electric trains running around the Greater Dublin Area.

Hopefully this will be the case, and not just in Dublin. But the presence of the interconnector won't be the catalyst. The planned interconnector will have a max capacity of 500MW, which will probably be less than 7% of the country's total capacity once it's in place. There's talk of a second interconnector but that's a long way off.

BTW, word on the street has it that the ESB will try to achieve a part of their wind generation target by agressively going after existing private wind projects currently in the pipeline and attempting to buy them out. So, much of what they talk about as being new generation plant is already on its way anyway. Nonetheless, I welcome the fact that ER has forced them (do I hear kicking and screaming?) in this new direction!

murphaph

maniac101 wrote: »

The ESB intend to complement their wind generation resource with open cycle gas plants. These plants will still require imported gas. By 2025 they hope to build a new coal plant at Moneypoint. This, they hope, will use Clean Coal Technology and will therefore have lower GHG emissions than the current one. Again, coal will continue to be imported. The ESB are under no illusions that this country will be still dependent on imported fuel for electricity generation for the long term.

Wouldn't the likely source for the gas plants be the Corrib and other western gasfields? The point about our continued dependence on coal at Moneypoint is fair bbut should be qualified.....we don't buy a lot of coal from politically and socially unstable countries (unlike oil). The supply of coal (I presume) comes from reliable places like the UK/Germany/Poland/US/South Africa?

maniac101 wrote: »

Hopefully this will be the case, and not just in Dublin. But the presence of the interconnector won't be the catalyst. The planned interconnector will have a max capacity of 500MW, which will probably be less than 7% of the country's total capacity once it's in place. There's talk of a second interconnector but that's a long way off.

The interconnector refered to above wasn't an electricity interconnector. It is a railway tunnel.

Chris_533976

And yet they're rebuilding the Aghada gas power plant to be waaaaaaaay bigger!

paulm17781

murphaph wrote: »

Wouldn't the likely source for the gas plants be the Corrib and other western gasfields?

I haven't followed that debate at all. Isn't one of the problems that we'd technically be importing gas from Norway (Statoil)?

murphaph

paulm17781 wrote: »

I haven't followed that debate at all. Isn't one of the problems that we'd technically be importing gas from Norway (Statoil)?

I don't know if it works like that but I would hope not. Some believe the Corrib field to be the tip of the iceberg and that there are huge hydrocarbon reserves off our western shore. Of course, a country as windy and exposed to the north Atlantic as Ireland should look to maximise it's energy production from wind and wave. After that we need reliable backups and gas appears a wise choice if we have potentially massive reserves. Nuclear shouldn't be discounted either.

Carawaystick

simple economies of scale should suggest a power station would be more efficient than a moving car or even locomotive.
power plants don't have to move for example, and boilers are more efficient as the energy is always being transferred to the water container. in a combustion engine, the maximum energy transfer is only occurring as the pistons passes through the halfway down the burn stroke.

a diesel-electric train has to carry fuel and a diesel engine as well as motors while an electric train needs no fuel or diesel engine and so should be lighter.

one other argument in a pro nuclear point is that coal power stations worldwide emit almost as much radioactivity per day as the 3mile island accident did.

murphaph

Carawaystick wrote: »

one other argument in a pro nuclear point is that coal power stations worldwide emit almost as much radioactivity per day as the 3mile island accident did.

Really? any more info on that? I've never heard it before but if true would be an interesting point in favour of nuclear over coal.

Run_to_da_hills

BendiBus wrote: »

My only issue with electric public transport (and it's certainly not a show stopper) is that peak commuting demand coincides with peak electricity demand, i.e. 5-7pm. While electric cars will charge overnight, trains create a high demand just when the power companies least need it. I suspect this also means PT companies end up paying more for electricity? Thus making electricity less feasible from a commercial point of view by deferring the point at which electric traction becomes the economic choice.

Another solution is a Hybred, ie diesel & electric traction. This system is in operation on meteo bus transit system in Seattle. They use electric overhead power downtown and switch to diesel when they get out of the city.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

simple economies of scale should suggest a power station would be more efficient than a moving car or even locomotive. power plants don't have to move for example, and boilers are more efficient as the energy is always being transferred to the water container. in a combustion engine, the maximum energy transfer is only occurring as the pistons passes through the halfway down the burn stroke. a diesel-electric train has to carry fuel and a diesel engine as well as motors while an electric train needs no fuel or diesel engine and so should be lighter.

A gas power station will max out at about 45% efficiency, before the energy loss in the transmission system. A combined Heat and power scheme can get about 70%.

Whatever about electrifying suburban areas and the main intercity lines, not every line will make economic sense. When the DART was built the economics of electrification was diesel was more efficient up to 30 trains a day, then electric. I don't know if that has changed.

Run_to_da_hills

Victor wrote: »

When the DART was built the economics of electrification was diesel was more efficient up to 30 trains a day, then electric. I don't know if that has changed.

Wih diesel pushing towards 1.30 a Liter I would say it has.