Discussion on Spirit of Ireland Proposal

Shiny

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Having a look at their site again, wind power will only be used for pumping of water and not connection to the grid, Hydro only connected to the grid, so again I cant see how that many would be required?

It all depends on the size of the Turbine chosen.

If they are allowed build lots of 3MW+ size Turbines then
the number will be less for sure.

They are also being extremely pessimistic with all their numbers by
giving the "worst case" figures.

Edit, I'm going to look at the videos now and get an exact number.

Edit 2, ok he mentions 2,500 turbines in the introduction presentation so
that must represent the 1.5MW grade turbines.

gpjordanf1

Shiny wrote: »

It all depends on the size of the Turbine chosen.

If they are allowed build lots of 3MW+ size Turbines then
the number will be less for sure.

They are also being extremely pessimistic with all their numbers by
giving the "worst case" figures.

Edit, I'm going to look at the videos now and get an exact number.

Edit 2, ok he mentions 2,500 turbines in the introduction presentation so
that must represent the 1.5MW grade turbines.

Either way I'm all for it and if I owned land with a usable valley I would be camped outside their door!
So September is the big presentation, not long to wait, heres hoping the right people get behind this?
To think these people are devoting their time, money and energy into solving the majority of this country's problems and then you think of our government are going to take 11-12 weeks holidays without so much as a second thought, amazing when you think about it!

zod

I'm depresed about the amount of time it will take to get planning permission though. 10 years is conservative and probably just enough for everyone to lose interest.

There will be no fast track, no politician has the cahoonas.

The Scots will be beat us to it : http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2517244.0.Hydros_potential_to_power_all_Scots_homes_in_a_decade.php

Oldtree

The "Pumped Hydro Energy Storage to Support Wind Energy Penetration in Ireland" April 2006 publication by The Sustainable Energy Research Group, University College Cork

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:priYqXWpKTwJ:www.ucc.ie/serg/pub/PS-R2.pdf+wind+energy+storage+hydro&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ie

finishes by saying:

"Further work is to be carried out on the economic impacts of pumped hydro energy storage. As the liberalised market operation and parameters are as yet uncertain, it is difficult to quantify definitively the benefits of installing such a system."

If we are to have 2-4000 turbines along the west coast, is the proposed storage system the most efficient use of the energy produced. I recall, but cannot pin it down, that there is somewhere betweer 30-40% losses between production by turbines and final output from the hydro stations. Surely a direct connection to the grid is a better idea for thses turbines with some other alternative such as biomass stations to take up the slack when needed. Is it proposed to put the turbines offshore?

zod

Oldtree wrote: »

If we are to have 2-4000 turbines along the west coast, is the proposed storage system the most efficient use of the energy produced. I recall, but cannot pin it down, that there is somewhere betweer 30-40% losses between production by turbines and final output from the hydro stations. Surely a direct connection to the grid is a better idea for thses turbines with some other alternative such as biomass stations to take up the slack when needed. Is it proposed to put the turbines offshore?

1. They hope to to get 87% efficiency from the pumped

2. They can still divert power from the windfarm straight into the grid at 100% efficiency ( what did you think they do when the resevoir is full ?)

3. The pumped storage is the central idea of the Spirit of Ireland otherwise it would be called "Lets use the wind" and is crtical in selling power at the best time (premium rate)

Oldtree wrote: »

Is it proposed to put the turbines offshore?

Did you even read the proposal ?

Oldtree

1. hope springs eternal............ 87% is way up there with the fairys!

2. not just my opinion see further up this thread

Shiny wrote: »

Their plan seems to be that these turbines do nothing other than constantly top up the
storage lakes.

3. I had interpreted that the turbines were the central issue and the pumped storage secondary.

4. should have said " put turbines offshore in addition to the land based ones........."

Shiny

Oldtree wrote: »

The "Pumped Hydro Energy Storage to Support Wind Energy Penetration in Ireland" April 2006 publication by The Sustainable Energy Research Group, University College Cork

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:priYqXWpKTwJ:www.ucc.ie/serg/pub/PS-R2.pdf+wind+energy+storage+hydro&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ie

finishes by saying:

"Further work is to be carried out on the economic impacts of pumped hydro energy storage. As the liberalised market operation and parameters are as yet uncertain, it is difficult to quantify definitively the benefits of installing such a system."

If we are to have 2-4000 turbines along the west coast, is the proposed storage system the most efficient use of the energy produced. I recall, but cannot pin it down, that there is somewhere betweer 30-40% losses between production by turbines and final output from the hydro stations. Surely a direct connection to the grid is a better idea for thses turbines with some other alternative such as biomass stations to take up the slack when needed. Is it proposed to put the turbines offshore?

A direct connection to the grid with that many turbines would never
work without storage. 2000 Turbines alone would potentially produce
in excess of 3000MW in strong wind conditions. This would be fine if
it occurred on a cold winter afternoon at peak demand but what would
happen if it continued into the middle of the night when the demand
for the whole country goes below 3MW ?

They are not against the turbines being built offshore but until such a
time that it becomes affordable to do so, there wont be any plans to
build them. Those new floating turbines look interesting but are only
in the testing phase at the moment.

zod wrote: »

2. They can still divert power from the windfarm straight into the grid at 100% efficiency ( what did you think they do when the resevoir is full ?)

Watching Alan Mulcahy's presentation I got the impression that they would try to prevent the
reservoirs from becoming full as much as possible due to the fact that the grid would not be
able to take the excess wind.

They would only be generating electricity at peak times to get the best price but also because
it wont be wanted at other times.

zod

Shiny wrote: »

A direct connection to the grid with that many turbines would never
work without storage. 2000 Turbines alone would potentially produce
in excess of 3000MW in strong wind conditions. This would be fine if
it occurred on a cold winter afternoon at peak demand but what would
happen if it continued into the middle of the night when the demand
for the whole country goes below 3MW ?

Look, if during peak demand you wanted to divert some of power from the windfarms straight into the grid at 100% efficiency then you can. The rest goes to the pumps. Its not all or nothing.

Also the plan calls for interconnects to Britain so that we can sell electricity at premium rate .. when we have too much or their wind dies or if they need the green credits.

This plan turns eratic wind energy into baseload .. the holy grail for green energy and highly sought after in Europe where they would kill for this kind of geographic advantage. What do want us do .. wait for oil to go to €400 / barrel or the planet to go beyond the tipping point ?

zod

Oldtree wrote: »

1. hope springs eternal............ 87% is way up there with the fairys!

What do you base this on ? Please link to any source

quote : "Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and conversion losses, approximately 70% to 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained.[1] The technique is currently the most cost-effective means of storing large amounts of electrical energy on an operating basis"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Shiny

zod wrote: »

What do want us do .. wait for oil to go to €400 / barrel or the planet to go beyond the tipping point ?

eh...no :rolleyes:

I was just trying to highlight the importance of the storage to
Oldtree.

Oldtree

I like the floating wind turbine idea, it would really minimise the impact on the sea floor. Maby they could attach some sort of wave generator to it to boost its performance.

What I want is a real sustainable and balanced approach. Not one that will destroy our precious enviromental reserves. There is a need for so called renewable energy, but at what cost are we prepared to move foraward with this. I bow to the democratic will of the people. The valleys all have their own unique value and that must also be taken into consideration. They are not just useless areas of land consigned to the dung heap.

Oldtree

from above: The "Pumped Hydro Energy Storage to Support Wind Energy Penetration in Ireland" April 2006 publication by The Sustainable Energy Research Group, University College Cork

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=ie

"The round-trip efficiency of such a system is generally in the order of 70-80%"

from the Spirit website:

Question: What is the energy storage efficiency of hydro storage plant compared to other forms of energy storage?
Answer: Hydro Storage is the most widely used grid energy storage system. It is a robust, mature technology. Modern plant has good round trip efficiency of up to 84%. Large storage capacity can be constructed at acceptable cost. Alternative storage systems tend to be either less efficient or more expensive.

Batteries store electric charge as chemical energy. They are the oldest known form of storage. Many different types are now available in addition to the well-known lead acid batteries used in vehicles. The typical round trip efficiency for batteries ranges from 89 to 92 %. Sodium sulfur batteries are one of the more promising technologies being considered for grid storage duties. However, they cost much more than Hydro Storage. Recently, super capacitors have been investigated. These have very high efficiencies of 97 to 98% but are very expensive and unsuitable for large-scale storage.

Compressed air stored under pressure in sealed mines or tunnels has been used with pneumatic compressor turbines. Suitable sites for large scale storage present considerable engineering challenges. Few are operating. These stores have low round trip efficiency of about 70%.

Large flywheels suspended on magnetic bearings to minimize friction losses have been tested to store mechanical energy. These have good efficiency of 90% but are costly and have only been tested on a limited scale. Experiments carried out with super conducting magnetic energy storage devices have demonstrated efficiencies of 95%. These are based on low /zero resistance superconductors, which have been under development for many years but are not yet commercially available. Pilot schemes producing hydrogen by electrolysis from water are being tried in Germany. The hydrogen is later used as a fuel for vehicles or to produce electricity. These are currently around 50 to 69% efficient but improvements are expected from new electrolyser technology. Large scale exploitation is likely to be many years away.

zod

Oldtree wrote: »

Hydro Storage is the most widely used grid energy storage system. It is a robust, mature technology. Modern plant has good round trip efficiency of up to 84%. Large storage capacity can be constructed at acceptable cost. Alternative storage systems tend to be either less efficient or more expensive.

eh? so we are agreed then .. the pumped storage idea of "spirit of Ireland" is probably the best approach to store energy and it's efficiency claims are not "up there with the fairies"

Oldtree

erm... no I don't think we are agreed.

I was showing that the 87% you stated was down to 84% on the spirit website and in the UCC 2006 publication it was down to between 70-80% efficient. This efficency scale of over 20% losses represents a huge amount of energy wasted, notwithsanding leakages from the resevoir.

This fellow seems articulate and educated have a read of his article:

http://sustainability.ie/pumpedstoragemyth.html

Oldtree

This 2004 report from the SEI varies with the UCC 2006 report. Which is right?

http://www.sei.ie/Grants/Renewable_Energy_RD_D/Projects_funded_to_date/Wind/Study_of_Elec_Storage_Technologies_their_Potential_to_Address_Wind_Energy_Intermittency_in_Irl/

Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) is a mature and familiar technology and
has been utilised within electricity systems for many years. It is the most
widespread energy storage system currently in use on power networks, operating
at power rating up to 4,000 MW and capacities up to 15 GWh. PHES uses the
potential energy of water, transferred by pumps (charging mode) and turbines
(discharge mode) between two reservoirs located at different altitudes. Currently,
the overall efficiency is in the 70-85% range although variable speed machines are
now being used to improve this. The efficiency is limited by the efficiency of the
deployed pumps and turbines (neglecting friction losses in pipes and water losses
due to evaporation). Plants are characterized by long construction times and high
capital costs. One of the major problems related to building new plants is of an
ecological/environmental nature

Shiny

We should find out what the efficiency will be in September as
I assume by that time they will have provisionally chosen the
hydro turbines to be installed, narrowed it down to a specific
site etc...

extremeweather

I have seen a German publication from 1998 which presents the efficiency of each component of a typical pumped hydro plant and multiplies them together to get a round trip figure of 77.3%. This might have improved slightly in the last ten years but 87% seems very ambitious.

Oldtree

Also at this website

http://www.sustainability.ie/payback.html

the following is stated:

"The energy required to manufacture some micro wind turbines, notably the Windsave model which is intended for mounting to buildings, is probably considerably more than the equipment could generate over its operating lifetime in most real world situations! Such equipment is probably a net energy loser."

While there is financial payback from many of the renewable sources over a(debatable) number of years, I have often wondered about the pollution aspect of unit production verses the pollution saves by the operation of the unit, which is excluded from the actual unit cost and by the use of grants. Would it be fair to include the emmissions from the factory workers car on his/her way to work in any assessment of pollution for this purpose, waste streams, etc?

Has this been quantified for the massive industrial turbines and are we on a false economy with regard to actual pollution. In fact if this is true then we are polluting now as against polluting over a (debatable) number of years?

Many manufacturers are pushing the so called pollution free aspect of their products!

I would be very interested in any links to actual data as I cannot seem to get a good search wording to find this out.

zod

Oldtree wrote: »

"The energy required to manufacture some micro wind turbines, notably the Windsave model which is intended for mounting to buildings, is probably considerably more than the equipment could generate over its operating lifetime in most real world situations! Such equipment is probably a net energy loser."

The idea of comparing a MICRO turbines effiency ( the ones that fit on your roof ) to a large industrial turbine is laughable

I believe that is listed as myth no.3 here

With regard to the efficiency of the pumps it actually doesn't matter too much as long as you are using the most effiecient use that is achievable for a realistic cost .. as you yourself quoted :

Question: What is the energy storage efficiency of hydro storage plant compared to other forms of energy storage?
Answer: Hydro Storage is the most widely used grid energy storage system. It is a robust, mature technology. Modern plant has good round trip efficiency of up to 84%. Large storage capacity can be constructed at acceptable cost. Alternative storage systems tend to be either less efficient or more expensive.

So we can can now use circa 80% the winds night electricy durring the day and charge the Brits top dollar for it. Its a no brainer.

Oldtree

Zod that was a very interesting link, thank you. I was not making a comparison but asking a question, I await to be enlightened.

I think that on your link they are referring to comparrisons of actual financial costs (or energy consumption in the production) as against the actual real pollution emitted by production vs pollution saved by a large turbines use (instead of say a coal/gas fired elec station) is what I was referring to. also the statement is on a vested interest site (as maybe the statement on the sustainability website is). actual figures of pollution comparrisons which is what I was trying to find.

nonetheless I am trying to find a copy on the web of

Milborrow, Dispelling the Myths of Energy Payback Time, as published in Windstats, vol 11, no 2 (Spring 1998).

which is the publication to which they got this nugget from to see exactly what "costs" are covered in this statement

PeteHeat

Hi,

I don't have the time to look for a web link but I do recall seeing a television program regarding a similar generating system in the USA, I think it is in Virginia.

They don't use wind to pump the water back to the reservoir, the use the tubines they have in place at night when they don't need the power for the grid.

An interesting program if you get a chance to see it, it was the nearest to perpetual motion for generating electricity that I have seen and would be helpful explaining the SOI proposal.

.