Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Spirit of Ireland moves ahead
Options
-
01-03-2010 11:03am#1More news from the good people at Spirit of Ireland in today's Times...
Well done to the lads and lets hope their project sees the light of day before too long, its something Ireland badly needs.Flooded valleys key to huge power plan
PLANS TO build a new electricity generating system, combining large-scale wind farms with huge hydro-power storage reservoirs in valleys on the west coast, are at an advanced stage, The Irish Times has learned.
“Spirit of Ireland”, billed as a national project for energy independence, has been under discussion for several months with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, as well as other agencies.
It would involve identifying up to five coastal valleys from counties Donegal to Cork, building dams on their seaward side and flooding them with sea water. These would provide a hydro-power back-up for the wind farms.
Typically, wind farms only produce 25 to 35 per cent of their maximum possible electricity output. The proposed hydro-generating stations would come into play when wind speeds were either too low or too high to be useful.
Each of the reservoirs would be about 100 times the size of Turlough Hill, Co Wicklow, where the peak was levelled in the early 1970s to create an artificial oval reservoir that can store 1,800 megawatt hours of hydro energy.
“There is tremendous political goodwill right across the board,” according to Dr Graham O’Donnell, the electrical engineer and entrepreneur who is co-ordinating work on the project by up to 150 professionals – all volunteers.
“Nobody is playing politics with it, because everyone can see the advantage of the project,” he said. “The first power station we envisage would supply a quarter of the electricity Ireland needs and we could also be exporting to the UK.
“To meet our national electricity requirements, we would need two hydro-storage reservoirs with a size of around 4km by 4km.
“Constructing a further three plants would earn very large incomes from export of natural energy.
“It’s an enormous project, a very exciting project for the country, and it’s making extremely strong progress. We look forward to concluding our discussions with the Government [principally Minister Eamon Ryan] within the next few weeks,” he said.
A final report, including likely locations and detailed costings, is now being compiled for presentation to Mr Ryan and his department.
“Everyone is aware of the project, including the Taoiseach, but there is a process to go through,” Dr O’Donnell explained.
Fifty potential sites along the west coast were identified, but he said many of these were not suitable for environmental or geological reasons. “We’ve now reduced the number of sites to 10, of which five will be studied in micro-detail,” he added.
The bowl-shaped valleys, created during the Ice Age, are located in areas with some of the best wind conditions in Ireland.
“Many are in areas of low population density, where land is of marginal or no use for farming,”the project’s website says.
It notes that a successful plant similar to the project being planned here has been in operation on the Japanese island of Okinawa for more than 10 years – “built in more difficult terrain than the glacial valleys on Ireland’s west coast”.Tagged:1
Comments
-
-
-
This is the same news that they released about a year ago.0
-
Honestly, that Richard Tol character who has been repeatedly attacking the project on his corner of the Irish economy blog, is playing a single note on a broken fiddle. His only objection to the thing is that it shouldn't be part-funded by the public, since its Green.Time Magazine wrote: »I remain unconvinced.
And now he's hastily backtracking over the many spurious technical objections he raised, since another company is attempting the same thing, having gotten a scent of the enormous potential there. His objection to SoI isn't about whether or not it would be of benefit, of profit, or of value to the Irish people, but simply because he likes to be seen to stand against his perceived "religion of green", and if the people of Ireland have to suffer for his grandstanding, then so be it.
Its reached the stage now when even perfectly valid projects which coincidentally are environmentally benign are shouted down by misguided and self anointed guardians against greenwashing.0 -
That's untrue and you know it. He supports many environmentally-friendly endeavours, like carbon taxes and thinks coal and peat should be levied similarly. He's not against anything "since it's Green". He's against publicly-funding it because he doesn't think it would be a prudent investment and, even if it were, it's something that will be provided by private interests at no risk to the taxpayer.Amhran Nua wrote: »His only objection to the thing is that it shouldn't be part-funded by the public, since its Green.
He has no problem with people spending their own money whatever way they want. Where's the problem?And now he's hastily backtracking over the many spurious technical objections he raised, since another company is attempting the same thing, having gotten a scent of the enormous potential there. His objection to SoI isn't about whether or not it would be of benefit, of profit, or of value to the Irish people, but simply because he likes to be seen to stand against his perceived "religion of green", and if the people of Ireland have to suffer for his grandstanding, then so be it.
If you call internationally-respected professors voicing their opinions on policies "shouting down", I worry about your party's contribution to the national debate. FF typically dismiss top economists' opinions on NAMA on the same terms.Its reached the stage now when even perfectly valid projects which coincidentally are environmentally benign are shouted down by misguided and self anointed guardians against greenwashing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Okay lets stop right there. You are saying that if something was potentially profitable, private interests will supply it regardless? You are aware that every major energy industry was heavily subisidised to get it going, and is still subsidised to this day? Richard's objection to wind subsidies falls a bit flat in the face of much larger international fossil fuel subsidies. Germany alone puts or used to put €2.5 billion into coal annually.Time Magazine wrote: »He's against publicly-funding it because he doesn't think it would be a prudent investment and, even if it were, it's something that will be provided by private interests at no risk to the taxpayer.
Away and beyond that, the computer you're typing on almost certainly wouldn't exist if not for government involvement.
It comes down to recognising high potential and encouraging it, something which has been woefully absent in Ireland to date.
The problem is yet another missed opportunity for the country which will probably end up turning into more FDI, with profits being repatriated elsewhere.Time Magazine wrote: »He has no problem with people spending their own money whatever way they want. Where's the problem?
I see your comparison to FF and raise you a call to authority fallacy. He's been religiously against the concept from day one, regardless of what new developments arise; it has indeed taken on the tone of a religious deliberation. Perhaps if a few more people questioned his conclusions, as Organic Power Ltd clearly did, we all might benefit.Time Magazine wrote: »If you call internationally-respected professors voicing their opinions on policies "shouting down", I worry about your party's contribution to the national debate. FF typically dismiss top economists' opinions on NAMA on the same terms.0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »Honestly, that Richard Tol character who has been repeatedly attacking the project on his corner of the Irish economy blog, is playing a single note on a broken fiddle. His only objection to the thing is that it shouldn't be part-funded by the public, since its Green.
Here's Andy Wilson's take on it. Andy runs his Sustainability Institute in Westport and was an independent environmental candidate at the last local elections. Highlights of Andy's article:
Ireland currently uses some 25-30TWh (Terawatt hours, equivalent to one billion kilowatt hours) of electricity per annum. The present wind capacity is about 1100MW (Megawatts), delivering some 2.9TWh of electricity per annum or about one tenth of the total demand. The Spirit of Ireland proposal is to massively ramp up wind capacity. Sound reasonable?
.....
To produce an equivalent amount of electricity from wind as is currently used by Ireland would require an installed capacity of around 10,000MW (10,000MW x 8760 hours per year x 30 percent capacity factor). That is not to say an installed wind capacity of 10,000MW would actually meet Ireland's electricity requirements as even with adequate storage capability, there still be wastage and conversion losses during the storage process of anything up to 20 percent.
It must be pointed out that the Spirit of Ireland plan does not envisage an installed wind capacity of 10,000 MW, but only a fraction of this. In other words, even if all the surplus energy could be stored until needed, with no conversion losses, it would be nowhere near enough. There are also insurmountable difficulties on the storage side.
.....
The total energy storage capacity of Turlough Hill is thus about 1.6GWh (Gigawatt hour: one million kilowatt hours), or roughly one two-hundredth of one percent of Ireland's annual electricity demand.
In order to balance out seasonal variations in supply from wind farms, Ireland would need storage capacity of between 800GWh and 2000GWh (2TWh) to meet current national electricity demand solely from wind (the storage requirement would depend on the installed wind capacity)... or in other words 500-1250 pumped storage facilities similar in size and capacity to Turlough. The reality is that nothing like this number of suitable sites exists in Ireland. Even if the sites could be found, the environmental, social and agricultural impact of flooding hundreds of inland valleys with seawater (the Spirit of Ireland proposal is to use seawater in its pumped storage facilities) would be on a par with some of the worst excesses of Soviet planners during the times of Stalin.
Using seawater in pumped storage at inland locations is a new and largely untested idea. From an environmental perspective, any leaks would be an irreversible catastrophe.
In today's money, one facility similar in size to Turlough Hill would cost an estimated €200 Million.
As a comprehensibly bad and unworkable idea, the SoI proposal one is hard to beat. It has 'corporate scam' written all over it.
Nor did it take six months of computer simulation to refute this arrant nonsense, just half an hour with a ten euro calculator.0 -
To refute Andy's take on it, Graham Brennan of SEI has gone on record as saying that Ireland could supply the majority of its electricity needs from readily available wind sites, thats ignoring deep water generation capacity.
Beyond that is the export potential of the turbine industry if we were to begin manufacturing them ourselves. He then goes on to use Turlough Hill, built in the 1960s, as his reference for any future projects, as if technology had stood still in the interim. In fact technology has moved ahead substantially, to the extent that the Chinese, not known for their spendthrift ways, are rolling out PSH hand over fist:Peak demand for electricity in the Republic of Ireland comes to about 5,000 megawatts, Graham Brennan, program manager for renewable-energy research and development at Sustainable Energy Ireland, the government's green-technology arm, said in an interview in SEI's Dublin offices. The peak occurred last December, at 4,907 megawatts.
Studies show that onshore and offshore wind turbines located in the republic could deliver approximately 5,000 megawatts of power over both parts of the island, he added. This figure takes into account only sites where it would be somewhat practical to put wind turbines, wind speeds, the geography, and the transmission grid. If Northern Ireland is counted, the figure jumps to 6,000 megawatts. In all, the wind blowing over the island contains 8,000 megawatts of power.
"There is enough onshore-accessible wind for about 100 percent of our electricity requirements," he said. "In terms of our accessible resources, the biggest and most successful so far is wind."
* Gangnan, Heibei (1968), 11 MW
* Miyun, Beijing (1973), 22 MW
* Panjiakou, Hebei (1992), 270 MW
* Cuntangkou, Sichuan (1992), 2 MW
* Guangzhou I, Guangdong (1994), 1,200 MW
* Shisanling, Beijing (1997), 800 MW
* Yangzhuoyonghu, Xizang (1997), 90 MW
* Xikou, Zhejiang (1998), 80 MW
* Tianhuangping (2000), 1,800 MW
* Guangzhou II, Guangdong (2000), 1,200 MW
* Xianghongdian, Anhui (2000), 80 MW
* Tiantang, Hubei (2001), 70 MW
* Shahe, Jiangsu (2002), 100 MW
* Tongbai, Zhejiang (2006), 1,200 MW
* Baishan, Jilin (2006), 300 MW
* Huilong, Henan (2005), 120 MW
* Tai’an, Shandong (2007), 1,000 MW
* Langyashan, Anhui (2007), 600 MW
* Zhanghewan, Hebei (2008), 1,000 MW
* Yixing, Jiangsu (2008), 1,000 MW
* Xilongchi, Shanxi (2008), 1,200 MW
* Huizhou, Guangdong (2008), 2,400 MW
* Baoquan, Henan (2009), 1,200 MW
* Heimifeng, Hunan (2009), 1,200 MW
* Fomo, Anhui (2008), 160 MW
* Bailianhe, Hubei (2009), 1,200 MW
* Pushihe, Liaoning (u/c 2010), 1,200 MW
* Xiangshuijian, Anhui (u/c 2011), 1,000 MW
* Huhhot, Inner Mongolia (u/c 2012), 1,200 MW
* Xianyou, Fujian (u/c 2012), 1,200 MW
* Xianju, Zhejiang (u/c 2013), 1,500 MW
* Hongping, Jiangxi (proposed), 1,200 MW in phase I, 1,200 MW in phase II, another 1,200 MW is proposed to add to be world’s largest
* Huanggou, Heilongjianf (proposed), 1,200 MW
* Qingyuan, Guangdong (proposed), 1,280 MW
* Wendeng, Shandong (proposed), 1,800 MW
* Tianchi, Henan (proposed), 1,200 MW
* Dongjiang, Hunan (proposed), 500 MW
* Fengning, Hebei (proposed), 1,500 MW
* Liyang, Jiangsu (u/c 2017), 1,500 MW
* Hengren, Liaoning (proposed), 800 MW
* Panlong, Chongqing (proposed), 1,200 MW
* Tianhuangping II, Zhejiang (proposed), 2,100 MW
* Qingyuan, Liaoning (proposed), 1,500 MW
* Mashan, Jiangsu (proposed), 700 MW
* Shenzhen, Guangdong (proposed), 1,200 MW
* Zulaishan, Shandong (proposed), 1,800 MW
* Wulongshan, Zhejiang (proposed), 2,400 MW
* Wuyuanshan, Jiangsu (proposed), 1,500 MW
* Baoquan II, Henan (proposed), 1,200 MW
* Zhuhai, Jiangsu (proposed), 1,800 MW
* Yongtai, Fujian (proposed), 1,200 MW
* Dunhua, Jilin (proposed), 1,200 MW
* Yangjiang, Guangdong (proposed), 2,400 MW
* Banqiaoyu, Beijing (proposed), 1,000 MW
Further, his take on salt water pumped starge is that its largely untested, except for the existing fully operational salt water facilities.
And as if all of that weren't enough, apparently Organic Power Ltd disagree with him as well. My advice to Andy would have been to spend a bit more on his calculator, or even take a few entirely free hours on Google to do a bit of basic research before jumping on the bandwagon.Hydroelectric Power Generation.
On-Line Operation of Adjustable-Speed System for Okinawa Yanbaru Seawater Pumped Storage Power Plant.
The Okinawa Yanbaru Seawater Pumped Storage Power Plant has been completed in the northern part of the main island of Okinawa Prefecture by the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). This facility, the first seawater hydroelectric power plant in the world, has been in operation since March 1999. Toshiba supplied the adjustable-speed system to the project as the fifth set of its kind, making our company the world's most experienced manufacturer. The applications of this adjustable-speed system will expand in the future, to encompass not only pumped storage power plants but also small and medium-size hydroelectric power plants and power system facilities.0 -
No.Amhran Nua wrote: »Okay lets stop right there. You are saying that if something was potentially profitable, private interests will supply it regardless? You are aware that every major energy industry was heavily subisidised to get it going, and is still subsidised to this day? Richard's objection to wind subsidies falls a bit flat in the face of much larger international fossil fuel subsidies. Germany alone puts or used to put €2.5 billion into coal annually.
Away and beyond that, the computer you're typing on almost certainly wouldn't exist if not for government involvement.
It comes down to recognising high potential and encouraging it, something which has been woefully absent in Ireland to date.
You said he's against public-funding for it "since it's Green".
I said "No, he's against it because he thinks it's a bad investment [and also he thinks it would be provided by the market]."
You initially misrepresented his position, and now you're saying that his position is mine.
Really, come on.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I find it amazing that you think that Irish investors would not be able to turn a profit on this venture, but the Irish government could. Have you seen anything the Irish government has done lately?The problem is yet another missed opportunity for the country which will probably end up turning into more FDI, with profits being repatriated elsewhere.
our
Your allusion to appeal to authority is misplaced. You claimed people were "shouting down" projects, despite the source being a reasonable blog piece. I'm not appealing to Tol's authority when I reference that but rather the content of the argument. He makes the poignant point that if stored electricity could be so profitable, then it would probably be done already. I'm not an engineer, but this seems very reasonable to me, thus my original statement that "I remain unconvinced." It was you that resorted to ad hominem logic by saying "Oh he's been against this, that and the other" rather than addressing the actual content.I see your comparison to FF and raise you a call to authority fallacy. He's been religiously against the concept from day one, regardless of what new developments arise; it has indeed taken on the tone of a religious deliberation. Perhaps if a few more people questioned his conclusions, as Organic Power Ltd clearly did, we all might benefit.0 -
Time Magazine wrote: »Your allusion to appeal to authority is misplaced. You claimed people were "shouting down" projects, despite the source being a reasonable blog piece. I'm not appealing to Tol's authority when I reference that but rather the content of the argument. He makes the poignant point that if stored electricity could be so profitable, then it would probably be done already. I'm not an engineer, but this seems very reasonable to me, thus my original statement that "I remain unconvinced." It was you that resorted to ad hominem logic by saying "Oh he's been against this, that and the other" rather than addressing the actual content.
The SoI scheme is not viable.
Anyone who works in the energy industry knows this.
The calculations don't stand up to scrutiny in any way, shape or form.
Amhran Nua would be well advised to appoint an energy expert if he's going to make statements like this on a website, particularly if they're indicative of his "party's" official stance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry now but in the absence of legitimate technical objections (which he is not qualified to make and has since backtracked over), the remainder must be a philosophical point of objection, so what are we to think? Pumped Storage Hydro does work and is economical. Wind does work and can be economical, especially when you compare its cost against say the amount of money we spend annually on importing fuel for electrical generation, primarily natural gas. Putting the two together does not produce a less powerful or useful combination.Time Magazine wrote: »You said he's against public-funding for it "since it's Green".
I said "No, he's against it because he thinks it's a bad investment [and also he thinks it would be provided by the market]."
Is he opposed to government support for enterprise in all cases or are we to assume that he was making statements outside of his competence?
Where did I say that they would not be able to turn a profit on it? Would you be entirely against government involvement in directing industrial efforts?Time Magazine wrote: »This is somewhat off-topic, but I find it amazing that you think that Irish investors would not be able to turn a profit on this venture, but the Irish government could.
I'm not going to go back and stitch together each time an article appears in the paper about SoI and the rapidity with which a blog piece from Tol popped up, but to the extent to which a public platform was made available, I'd say it was a concerted effort.Time Magazine wrote: »Your allusion to appeal to authority is misplaced. You claimed people were "shouting down" projects, despite the source being a reasonable blog piece.
Sure you are, you saidTime Magazine wrote: »I'm not appealing to Tol's authority when I reference that but rather the content of the argument.
Pure argumentum ad verecundiam.Time Magazine wrote: »If you call internationally-respected professors
I'm sure people used to say that if man were meant to fly he'd have wings as well. Ideas need to be developed, concepts thought out, and trials put into place. This point, if it is his point, is extremely backwards.Time Magazine wrote: »He makes the poignant point that if stored electricity could be so profitable, then it would probably be done already.
And neither is he, which really puts the icing on the whole appeal to authority fallacy.Time Magazine wrote: »I'm not an engineer
And yet here we have another company who do think its viable and are doing almost the exact same thing. Perhaps you should drop them a line and tell them to abandon what they are doing before they waste investors' money.The SoI scheme is not viable.
Anyone who works in the energy industry knows this.
The calculations don't stand up to scrutiny in any way, shape or form.0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »And yet here we have another company who do think its viable and are doing almost the exact same thing. Perhaps you should drop them a line and tell them to abandon what they are doing before they waste investors' money.
They're not "doing almost the exact same thing"
I suggest you do some research on power generation and the SEM before mouthing off at people.
Actually, you could do yourself a favour ignore that article that quoted Brennan.
It's riddles with inaccuracies.
Here's one:That means cheaper power. Electricity from wind costs about 6.2 euro cents a kilowatt-hour here--less than the 8.3 cents a kilowatt-hour that electricity from gas-fired plants costs, Brennan said. The wind figure doesn't include the costs of having a reserve (i.e. a gas facility that can produce power in slack times). Still, it costs less to generate power from wind than from gas.
It certainly doesn't cost less to generate power from wind than gas.0 -
Okay, could you point out the differences so:They're not "doing almost the exact same thing"
Other than the scale involved, looks pretty similar to me.Maurice McCarthy of Organic Power Ltd said that his project aims to store excess energy from the electricity grid, and would be located close to a number of approved windfarms which have not yet been built.
“It is an established technology worldwide, with hundreds of schemes such as Turlough Hill in Wicklow, in successful and safe operation,” he explained.
The Atlantic would be used as the “lower reservoir” to a land-based structure on the Glinsk upland, with visibility confined to a reservoir embankment and access roads.
He said that a similar-type sea-water-pumped hydroelectric energy storage scheme has been working successfully in a national park in Japan since 1991.
He said that, if it was approved, the design of the 480 MW scheme would store excess power in the reservoir system during off-peak night-time hours, or when generation exceeds demand.
“The stored energy will be returned to the grid through turbines for use during peak times in the morning and evening, or generation emergencies, thus significantly reducing the national need for imported fossil fuels that are required to keep gas-, coal- and oil-fired power stations running,” Mr McCarthy said.
The scheme is designed to accept up to one-third of the projected surplus night-time wind power produced in Ireland when the national target of 5,000MW of wind turbines is achieved under Government policy by 2020, he said. It should significantly expedite the delivery of the wind energy target by providing a high-voltage transmission grid connection to the northwest, he said.
Right, so I should be taking the back of the envelope calculations of an "environmental candidate" over a direct quote from the manager of Sustainable Energy Ireland (and last I heard he was acting executive officer).Actually, you could do yourself a favour ignore that article that quoted Brennan.
That entirely depends on the scale you are working at. On a small scale, wind doesn't stack up too well, mostly because of the unreliability of supply, which leads to poor pricing options available on the energy market. If you have a wider base of installed wind smoothed out by something like PSH (or the interconnector, which works as well) it becomes quite favourable, see the European supergrid concept for reference. And the current price of gas, which provides the majority of our capacity, assumes that the Russians don't have another tizzy and interfere with natural gas supplies again, or the price of gas doesn't go up for other reasons.It certainly doesn't cost less to generate power from wind than gas.
Have you got the figures on the cost of fuel imports to Ireland annually for the purposes of electricity generation handy?0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »Okay, could you point out the differences so:
They intend buying the power.
There's no "surplus" at night.
Wind power is generated and is then guaranteed to be bought by the Pool. Any deficit is then made up by conventional power stations.Amhran Nua wrote: »Right, so I should be taking the back of the envelope calculations of an "environmental candidate" over a direct quote from the manager of Sustainable Energy Ireland (and last I heard he was acting executive officer).
The article is two years old. :rolleyes:Amhran Nua wrote: »And the current price of gas, which provides the majority of our capacity, assumes that the Russians don't have another tizzy and interfere with natural gas supplies again, or the price of gas doesn't go up for other reasons.
Oh dear.0 -
Oh dear is right. It is such a shame that when Ireland is in such need of an alternative political party that this is all we can come up with - another group of economic illiterates.They intend buying the power.
There's no "surplus" at night.
Wind power is generated and is then guaranteed to be bought by the Pool. Any deficit is then made up by conventional power stations.
The article is two years old. :rolleyes:
Oh dear.0 -
There is a lot of uniformed comment on the SoI proposals, particularly from Amhran Nua.
To recap:
The only proven technique for storing electricity on a large scale is pumped storage. Surplus electricity is used to pump water to (relatively) high altitude storage dams. When extra electricity is needed, the water is let out of the dams through turbines. Ireland already has one such pumped storage facility, at Turlough Hill in the Wicklow Mountains. Built between 1968 and 1974 at a cost of around £20 Million, it comprises two reservoirs. The upper reservoir - the one used for electricity generation - contains 2.3 million cubic meters of water. In today's money, a facility similar in size to Turlough Hill would cost around €200 Million.
The purpose of Turlough Hill is to provide some balancing capability between day and night time supply and demand. This it achieves. The facility is able to deliver up to 292 MW of electricity - about one tenth of the average national demand - continuously for about five hours. Not weeks or even days: hours. At this point the storage facility is fully depleted, just the same as a rechargeable battery that has been fully run down.
The total energy storage capacity of Turlough Hill is thus about 1.6 GWh (Gigawatt hour: one million kilowatt hours), or roughly one hundred and sixtieth of one percent of Ireland's annual electricity demand.
In order to balance out seasonal variations in wind energy, Ireland would need storage capacity of 2000-2500 GWh (2-2.5 TWh) to meet current national electricity demand solely from wind. That's about one tenth of annual demand.... or approximately 1500 times the capacity of Turlough Hill.
The point made earlier by Amhran Nua about technology having moved on since Turlough Hill, simply demonstrates his ( very deep) ignorance of the subject. Technology cannot alter the laws of gravity. The output of a pumped storage facility is equal to the mass of the stored liquid, times the head, times a gravitational constant, times the efficiency of the plant. Turlough Hill is usually attributed with a turbine efficiency of 85%. It doesn't matter how much technology moves on, the same factors apply.
Using seawater in pumped storage at inland locations is a new and largely untested idea. Currently, there is one (experimental) seawater-based pumped storage facility in the world - at Okinawa in Japan. The Okinawa facility is tiny - only one tenth the size of Turlough Hill. The reservoir is only 250 metres in diameter and in many respects resembles a LARGE OUTSIDE SWIMMING POOL (it is even lined with rubber sheeting). Maximum output is 30 MW. This output can be maintained for about 5 hours. In other words, it would meet the electricity requirements of a small Irish town for a few hours. It reportedly cost $200 Million to build, which makes the Turlough Hill facility look positively good value for money.
The people posting here in favour of the SoI proposals would do well to get their calculator out for a while. Then they would discover the proposals, even though costing tens of billions, would only be able to supply Ireland with electricity for a couple of days. Energy security? Hardly.
Is this good value for money? Or more pertinently, is it a good use of (borrowed) public money that would commit the people of Ireland to further decades of debt, simply to line the pockets of some anonymous corporate 'investors' ? Presumably these are the same type of investors who brought the global economy to the brink of disaster with their earlier pyramid schemes, and whom are now being bailed out to the tune of billions with stolen public money.
And these people call themselves patriots?0 -
penguin2010 wrote: »Using seawater in pumped storage at inland locations is a new and largely untested idea. Currently, there is one (experimental) seawater-based pumped storage facility in the world - at Okinawa in Japan. The Okinawa facility is tiny - only one tenth the size of Turlough Hill. The reservoir is only 250 metres in diameter and in many respects resembles a LARGE OUTSIDE SWIMMING POOL (it is even lined with rubber sheeting). Maximum output is 30 MW. This output can be maintained for about 5 hours. In other words, it would meet the electricity requirements of a small Irish town for a few hours. It reportedly cost $200 Million to build, which makes the Turlough Hill facility look positively good value for money.
Copy / paste from SOI
Spirit of Ireland plans to construct a small number of Hydro Storage reservoirs along the west coast to store sea water. Numerous bowl shaped glacial valleys were carved out in the last ice age. Coastal erosion has left them facing the ocean. Many are close to the sea (1 to 2 km.) and have shapes, which when dammed at the sea end will provide very cost effective large storage reservoirs. The sea itself will be used as the lower reservoir.
This avoids the traditional costs of building a second reservoir and greatly reduces construction costs.
More than 50 suitable valleys have been identified by the project team. These U or bowl shaped valleys are better than the V shaped valleys typically found in Switzerland and other countries. A modest sized rock dam in a U shaped valley can lock in more water. V shaped valleys require construction of larger dams for the same amount of storage. When dammed, a “head” or height of water above the power station of 100 to 150 meters can be achieved. This will store large amounts of energy in a lake of 2 to 3 km length and approximately 1 to 2 km wide. Unlike conventional designs for Hydro Storage schemes like Turlough Hill, a completely artificial upper reservoir does not have to be constructed. Only the sea end of a valley has to be dammed. No construction is needed at the sides. This is much cheaper than a completely artificial upper reservoir, where the entire circumference must be built. Geological surveys of suitable valleys have shown that they consist of impermeable rock, which will prevent seepage of salt water into local aquifers and streams. To meet our national electricity requirements we would need 2 hydro storage reservoirs with a size of around 4 km by 4 km. Constructing a further 3 plants would earn very large incomes from export of natural energy.0 -
Zod, many thanks for that. Bit why don't you share your knowledge with us and state what the yield in electrical energy from each of the 4km x 4km dams storage dams will be (from fully filled to completely empty)? Then we can compare that to national annual energy requirements.
My own view is that the yield from each dam will be no more than one day's supply of electricity, and possibly less. This may be very useful for balancing out fluctuations in daily demand, but is not going to enable energy surpluses from one part of the year to be transferred to another. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise? Or if you can't do this, maybe you could explain how is it such a project will contribute anything to overall energy security?
I take your point about the 'advantages' of not having to build two reservoirs at each location, but this has to be balanced against the likelihood of leaks at 100m above sea level (for a country that has trouble sealing a swimming pool and loses half its domestic water supply on route to its housing stock it seems a big ask to make dams holding millions of tons of seawater completely leak proof), airborne salt contamination of nearby land, and the technical problems associated with the use of seawater.
The seawater pumped storage facility in Japan has yet to be replicated on a scale envisaged by SoI. In other words, the SoI proposal is going into uncharted territory. The project will only work if the billions sunk into development (and the interest payments thereof) can be recouped well before all the wind turbines come to the end of their working life. This is predicated on energy demand remaining high for many decades, a high price being paid for electricity sold to the grid, and a high level of operational time. As a investment, the project is extremely high risk.
And perhaps you would like to share with us information on who will receive the money accruing from the sale of electricity to the UK, and what price this is assumed to get? The Irish public are probably going to be asked to make massive sacrifices in order to subsidise this project. On a yearly basis the contribution could easily exceed the €4 billion taken out of the public purse in the last budget.
The public deserve to told what those costs are, and what the benefits are to them, if any. Waffle about the 'project meeting Ireland's energy needs within five years' (a fantasy) simply don't cut it.
Or do you envisage all the dosh being put up by the corporate sector (the obvious solution to the issue of finance)?
Perhaps for the impartial observer, who has no particular axe to grind but feels the whole project lacks credibility, is the deliberate withholding of information by SoI. If these 4km x 4km sites have been located, is the public not entitled to know where they are? How many people will have to be forcibly relocated to facilitate such schemes?0 -
I'm a bit confused about the airbourne salt, care to elaborate?
I have had this chat with Heroditas a few times on the Green forum, I am still in favour of the idea, clearly it is not THE solution (If anything were that easy..) but I do think that dismissing it offhand is equally foolish.
This won't happen overnight, but as our current powerplants age, and demand increases why not phase a transition into the new technology (Heck, everything costs, why not make it less polluting while we're at it?)
The argument that the Gov or the builders or whoever can't do it right, so not to bother is a bit sad. As has been said already: argue it on it's own merits, and if ya can't diss it on them alone, then look at your argument a bit harder.
Also, there's a lot of figure's thrown about, and a whole lack of citation, I'd be interested in seeing all the figures, and logic, because I'm not convinced that all the numbers can be right
0 -
Cliste,
I think you need to do the sums. That's what its all about. Does this proposal really deliver energy security or does it not? If it did meet all of Ireland's electrical energy requirements then this can be assessed against the other options, including planned powerdown to a sustainable level of energy use. But the evidence provided so far is that the SoI proposal is way too small to meet Ireland's electricity requirements. The storage capacity envisaged by SoI only amounts to a few days ( at best) of electrical energy, so certainly would not have been able maintain supply through the many days of little or no wind this winter. Had Ireland been relying on this type of project this winter, it would have been stuffed.
Regarding the more likely use of the SoI project, to provide some temporary balancing of daily fluctuations in demand, and a means of capturing peak wind outputs (which are increasingly having to be curtailed as installed capacity increases as the grid cannot accommodate them), then these too must be assessed on the basis of likely benefits and likely costs.
Until these assessments have been carried out, independently and in a fully transparent way, by people not associated with the project,then the proposals must be treated with the proverbial grain of salt.
Why? Because the project as outlined, cannot deliver anything like enough energy to meet Ireland's electricity requirements, although this is what SoI claim. So the claim is false, which in turn suggests an elaborate scam to get the state to finance a venture designed to make wind farms more profitable for the developer, with little or no benefit to the Irish public. Its a new development bubble in the making.
Of course, this remains unproven, but at the same time the dishonesty surrounding the actual storage capacity of this project does not bode well.
Re the airborne salt: it might be something and it might be nothing. It is something to consider as a possible source of environmental contamination, that's all, in assessing the pros and cons of saltwater storage versus freshwater facilities. Any proper environmental assessment would have to look at this.
However, while not wanting to dismiss the very real environmental concerns, I think the argument should focus on whether or not the project can deliver what it says on the tin.
I don't believe it can.0 -
Advertisement
-
penguin2010 wrote: »
Why? Because the project as outlined, cannot deliver anything like enough energy to meet Ireland's electricity requirements, although this is what SoI claim. So the claim is false, which in turn suggests an elaborate scam to get the state to finance a venture designed to make wind farms more profitable for the developer, with little or no benefit to the Irish public. Its a new development bubble in the making.
what on earth are you talking about?
If the state were to finance the venture, they would get the dividends.
If a developer(s)/third party were to finance the venture, they would get the dividends.
Either way the money is spent in Ireland, the jobs are Irish and the CO2 offset is Irish.
From Pat Gill (SoI ) :
when first presented with the overall cost of this project €10.5 billion, many people gasp and tell us that finding that kind of money is impossible. In actual fact raising the money will not, we believe be all that difficult at all, we have had discussions with the ECB, investment funds, ethical investment funds, sovereign wealth funds, and finally the nub of your question, pension funds and all have expressed a wish to fund this project.
Two important points to make here, S of I are only interested in long term money at utility interest rates.
And the second point is that we wish that Irish people benefit to the largest extent possible, which is why we wish to run the project as a national co operative.
So in effect Irish people will have two ways to invest, as a co op shareholder and through their pension funds.
If you don't want to invest then don't.0 -
Zod,
You should stop to think about that last statement a bit. Because lots of loss-making enterprises regularly receive state funding. Whether or not this is a good idea depends on the likely outcome. Three recent examples, well reported in the Irish press, are Anglo Irish Bank, Allied Irish Bank and Bank of Ireland. In these cases of course its not so much a funding as a bailout. There are also many other examples in Ireland.
Investment implies an expectation of return, which in turn suggests a degree of ownership or interest paid on loans given. Profit on investment implies there is some money coming back, at some point. However, as Ireland knows too well, the value of investments can fall as well as rise.
State monies spent on project-specific grid infrastructure or interconnectors to Britain, or on guaranteed long-term premium prices for energy (as opposed to ones indexed linked to inflation, or to the price of energy from other sources, or ones annually reviewed on the basis of demand) are not investments but subsidies.
Subsidies paid by the state need to be assessed on the basis on the likely costs and benefits to society, when compared to other state expenditures, and when the full implications of State borrowing are taken into consideration.
So what do you say to the idea the project should receive no state subsidies? Let the developers finance the whole lot: the wind farms, the dams, and the various associated (project specific) infrastructure? What do you say to the suggestion that the tariff for electricity fed into the grid be fixed for relatively short time horizons, in order to accommodate possible falls in demand, as occurred in the second half of last year?
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/EirGrid%20Electricity%20Statistics%20-%20Jan%202010.pdf
And that the full environmental cost (the externalities) is also carried by the developer?
And that proper, open and fully transparent planning procedures, fully compliant with the appropriate EU Directives, and in accordance with the principles of public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, established at Aarhus in 1998, are followed (instead of fast track sleight-of-hand that conveniently circumvents the democratic process)?
Presumably you would be happy to proceed on these lines? Or if not, why?
To reiterate my earlier question:
"why don't you share your knowledge with us and state what the yield in electrical energy from each of the 4km x 4km dams storage dams will be, in GWh (from fully filled to completely empty)? Then we can compare that to national annual, (and monthly, weekly and indeed daily) energy requirements."
This is what its really about. Do the figures actually add up? Equally, if you can't manage the sums, then you're not much of an ambassador for the project.
Also, its kind of hard to argue there is a greenhouse gas emission benefit, without providing detailed information about energy yield, or without considering whether the same level of investment in something else (sustainable forestry for example) might deliver a better outcome.
Without the hard facts of what the project can deliver, and how this equates to what Ireland actually uses, the rest is just a load of waffle and spin.0 -
penguin2010 wrote: »Cliste,
I think you need to do the sums. That's what its all about.....
blah blah blah... does not bode well.
Re the airborne salt: it might be something and it might be nothing. It is something to consider as a possible source of environmental contamination, that's all, in assessing the pros and cons of saltwater storage versus freshwater facilities. Any proper environmental assessment would have to look at this.
Firstly, give me the damn numbers till I can do them!
Secondly, stop with the airborne salt already! Yes environmental concerns (Heck it's why people are interested in the SOI in the first place) but the problem with salt isn't that it becomes airborne. I don't know much science, but I know that if ya heat up salt water the salt does not become airborne.0 -
Cliste,
Many thanks for the reply. I don't wish to get too stuck on salt contamination: it is a potential risk that needs to be evaluated that's all. Possibly it is of minor significance. But as any farmer who lives near a body of saltwater exposed to prevailing wind knows, salt particles do become airborne, and do contaminate (to varying degrees) the adjacent land. There would be some impact on adjacent land from any artificial saltwater lake of 16km2, and it would be a good idea to investigate further.
Regarding the sums, I had kind of assumed that anyone professing support for the project would have acquainted themselves with the details, or why else the support?
But how is this for an opening bid:
Two lakes each 4km x 4km hence 32 km2 in total
Head of 100 metres
Lake depth of 10 metres
Total capacity of the two lakes (energy potential before generator losses): about 85 GWh. With generator losses, about 75 GWh ( figures are rounded off a little)
Ireland uses this much electricity in one day, and more in the winter.
So for every 10 metres depth of the two lakes, you get one day's supply of electricity. I thought the SoI proposal was for lakes of only 10 metres depth, hence the storage capacity amounts to only one day's supply.
Even if the depth was 50 metres, that's only 5 days.
So how does that give Ireland energy security or "energy independence within 5 years (SoI website)? There are frequently periods of 10 days or longer, when wind output from Ireland's 1100 MW (old data, probably 1300 MW now) of wind turbines averages 120 MW or less: around 3 percent of typical winter time demand of 3400 MW. Such a period occured last month. So even with 10 times as many turbines (11000-13000MW), at best this could have supplied around 30-35 percent of Ireland's electricity needs for this period.
The shortfall would be an average of about 2250 MW. So extrapolating over this 10 day period, the shortfall in energy terms is 2250 MW x 24 x 10
= 540,000 MWh = 540 GWh. This would require 14 lakes each 4km x 4km (each lake being 10 metres deep). Even if the lake depth is increased to 50 metres, that's still 3 lakes, with no surplus for carrying on into the following weeks, and no allowance for energy losses in pumping the water from the sea to the storage reservoirs.
This year, the period of low wind has extended, almost unbroken since the early days of February, and is on-going, so my proposition is that either the storage capacity needs to be much much greater than SoI have let on, or the number of turbines significantly increased, or both.
Or (the most likely scenario) the proposals are pants.
Over to you.....0 -
Penguin2010,
I think the idea is that by being interconnected with the UK and Europe (where in normal mode we would be net exporting), we would only have to pay more for electricity only during those extended periods of no or little wind. This occasional premium could be added into the overall price over the long term. During those low wind periods the more expensive fossil fuel plants would be run along with importation over the the very interconnects that are normally used to export energy. The overall outcome would be that fossil fuel consumption would be dramatically reduced. The other alternative is to keep the status quo, which also doesn't guarantee energy security of supply.
One can easily do a statistical probability analysis of the past decades of wind data to predict the mean and variance of the number of days per year this scenario would occur. An agreed energy price could be agreed in a competitive energy bidding market.
I may be mis-quoting but I thought it was said the height of some of the dams (lake height) would be 100 m. Also the water head maybe able to be much higher in some cases with the caveat that the lake size may be smaller but with an overall higher ROI. (smaller dam size)0 -
NRA's Murphagh,
Thanks for the comments
If the idea was to use the interconnectors to provide for every period (of more than a few days in length) that has only moderate wind, it's disingenuous for SoI to advertise the proposed wind and pumped storage project as providing "energy independence within 5 years".
In any one year, there will be a considerable number of such periods. On the SoI website, there appears to be only one sentence that vaguely hints at the possibility of interconnectors being used for energy imports.
Also, the (very great) likelihood that the fossil fuel power stations will still be needed further contradicts this idea of "energy independence".
Also, we're only talking about electricity supply here, not total energy requirements. Electricity accounts for only one third of final energy consumption.
Ireland meeting its entire electrical needs from indigenous sources of energy is one (not at all easy) thing, but complete energy independence comes with a much higher price tag. Especially if the lead time is only 5 years.
On dams, this is from the SoI website:
"These U or bowl shaped valleys are better than the V shaped valleys typically found in Switzerland and other countries. A modest sized rock dam in a U shaped valley can lock in more water. V shaped valleys require construction of larger dams for the same amount of storage.
When dammed, a “head” or height of water above the power station of 100 to 150 meters can be achieved."
So there we have it, the head is 100-150 metres, with the dam height unstated ( but "modest"). However, we can infer quite alot more from other parts of the SoI website.
On the construction materials:
"Typically 3-12 million cubic metres... [of] low cost rock fill ... will be used.... across valleys approximately 1 to 2 km wide."
Taking the 12 million cubic metres figure, a dam 1500 meters long, and 40 metres deep (average distance through the dam), would be 20 meters high.
One might assume the average water depth of the storage lakes is around half the dam height. 10 metres is not an unreasonable estimate. This is the figure I used in in my earlier post when calculating the total energy yield. However, even if the average depth in several times greater, the storage capacity only amounts to a few days supply of electricity.
To return to the SoI claim:
"To meet our national electricity requirements we would need 2 hydro storage reservoirs with a size of around 4 km by 4 km. Constructing a further 3 plants would earn very large incomes from export of natural energy. "
Not really. For one thing the "further 3 plants" would be desperately needed to help meet Irish energy demand and make good the massive investment in wind. Not to mention the other dozen or twenty or so storage lakes that would be required to get anywhere close to electricity independence.
Also, exported electricity might earn the developer money when market conditions were favourable, but equally, in poor market conditions it would have to be sold below cost.
From the position of the recipient country, the 'best' price is the lowest price, and this in turn is only something to consider when even cheaper indigenous options are not available. And then there is the issue of whether they can afford to buy...
Fine for the developers to take that risk on energy prices remaining high enough to cover the investment and the interest payable on money borrowed: they shouldn't quibble in the slightest if they believe their own spin.
But its a very rash option for the Irish state: essentially buying into energy futures markets and the continued ability of the sinking UK economy to pay a premium rate for energy imports. Somewhat comparable to the British and Dutch investors lobbing money into Icesave.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,843 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89083
The west coast of Ireland has a lot of storms, it airborne salt was an issue in our climate we'd already know about it.penguin2010 wrote: »Re the airborne salt: it might be something and it might be nothing. It is something to consider as a possible source of environmental contamination, that's all, in assessing the pros and cons of saltwater storage versus freshwater facilities. Any proper environmental assessment would have to look at this.
On many coastal islands the spray from the waves goes right over the top.
Anyway when we get the interconnector we can import some electricity0 -
Captain Midnight
A good observation that flora and fauna on islands and in coastal areas are adapted to salt, but conversely, areas not normally exposed to salt laden are not. So the negative influence of salt from artificial lakes would depend on how much salt was already in the immediate locality - you certainly wouldn't find it at the top of a long thin valley.
I have just noticed the calculations on the previous post are wrong. The dam height should be 62 metres not 20.
"Typically 3-12 million cubic metres... [of] low cost rock fill ... will be used.... across valleys approximately 1 to 2 km wide."
...Taking the 12 million cubic metres figure, a dam 1500 meters long, and 40 metres deep (average distance through the dam), would be 20 meters high...
No, a dam 1500 metres long, and 130 metres deep (average distance through the dam), would be 62 meters high
Average water depth is more likely to be 30 metres.
Its the difference between 1 days supply and 3 days. Worth having certainly, but still a very long way short of energy independence.0 -
I did the calculations a while ago, and as I recall, decided that in order to produce electricity at a competitive rate, and repay investors over the time advertised, that SoI would indeed need to find cheaper ways to construct the wind turbines, locally. Or if not, extend the period of payback.
But as far as being a viable project that I would like to invest my own money in, I felt the project still holds water (sorry couldn't resist the pun).
I believe that if you are going to judge the project on calculations, then you should only focus on return on investment. i.e. is it viable financially. And everyone should do their own calculations, if they are thinking of investing.
The other arguments , are in effect, niceties. Although, in my opinion, important niceties.
1. Energy independence is not achievable, if you take it to mean 0% imports.
Perhaps though it makes more sense to think of energy independence as safeguarding our country from sudden fluctuations in energy costs, or indeed significant medium to long term increases.
With that idea in mind, I would suggest that your calculations are sufficiently correct and I agree that we probably need up to about five 4km*4km reservoirs, to offer up to a week of backup for no wind conditions. This would significantly reduce our susceptibility to international energy prices. The more resevoirs we build the less likely we are to have to import during no wind conditions. However, each subsequent resevoir is going to be less financially viable. Extra interconnectors though, mitigates this by providing increased export potential. I haven't analysed if its viable to just keep building resevoirs and exporting it, ad infinitem, in the long term I doubt it, but that should be considered in its own right.
2. I wouldn't worry too much about the salt, sure it will not be good for the land that suddenly finds itself next to the sea, but SoI have said the valleys in the short list are of little arable value. (and in perspective , its irrelevant)0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,843 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89083
most of the vegetation on the islands and at the coast is not salt adapted, you have to get really close to the foreshore to see those that are.penguin2010 wrote: »Captain Midnight
A good observation that flora and fauna on islands and in coastal areas are adapted to salt, but conversely, areas not normally exposed to salt laden are not. So the negative influence of salt from artificial lakes would depend on how much salt was already in the immediate locality - you certainly wouldn't find it at the top of a long thin valley.
salt used to be added to fields to release minerals , it used to be used as a fertilizer, also the large amount of water in the soil and frequent and heavy rainfall would limit salt, and even if there was a salt problem it just means that the local enviroment is better suited to the naturally occuring salt adpated plants. People seem to forget that that before July 19th 12,000 BC much of the country was covered in glaciers, none of the environments on this island have been remotely stable over the long term.
I don't know why people are getting worked up over 100% energy storage.
It's a non issue until we close down most of the fossil fuel power stations.
If the first one could supply 50% of our energy needs, we would still retain the generating capacity from before. Yes there are diminishing returns as you try to get to 100% capacity , but isn't that true for every method of generating power.
People have talked here about importing power from Iceland, this scheme is far more sensible.
As an aside could you have aquacultre, with tidal organisms in the upper resevoir. And of course if gives a place for wild birds and stuff.0
Advertisement