Eco Eye programme on Transport on RTE 1

dublinman1990

Is any watching Eco Eye on RTE 1 now. Seems to be an interesting programme tonight.

One of the topics is the dependence on Oil in the transport industry.

dublinman1990

The Telsa electric car was very interesting tonight. I thought Duncan Stewart had a great ability to drive that car around the track?

Going from 0 to 100 k/mh in 4 seconds was interesting to note.

I'd imagine it should be on Top Gear already by now.

Another interesting thing was the using bus a vital means of public transport. Could BRT be mentioned on it in the near future. Only mentioned hybrid buses as a means of a vital solution to public transport? I had heard some rumors the new DU Fleet, whenever that comes, would all have hybrid carriages. Don't know MN.

Any thoughts would be appreciated?

n97 mini

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/first-tesla-roadster-arrives-ireland

Was it one of those? Or even that exact one?

L1011

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I'd imagine it should be on Top Gear already by now.

Done, quite some time ago.

Cookie_Monster

MYOB wrote: »

Done, quite some time ago.

Indeed, welcome to three years ago

dublinman1990

n97 mini wrote: »

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/first-tesla-roadster-arrives-ireland

Was it one of those? Or even that exact one?

The very one, I am on Chrome and it's website though doesn't seem to be working when I see it. I had to open the new image in a new tab and it worked perfectly.

I think I have seen it on Top Gear before. I check back on youtube or website when I can.

Yawlboy

some of the numbers on Eco-Eye were a bit off though. He worked out that the average person spent €12k PA on a car, but by giving it up you could save €15k......... Obviously the free public transport isn't available outside Dublin.

Also He reckons the Nissan Leaf has a range of 160kms - in a UK car magazine I read recently they had trouble reaching 70 miles in one.

robd

Yawlboy wrote: »

Also He reckons the Nissan Leaf has a range of 160kms - in a UK car magazine I read recently they had trouble reaching 70 miles in one.

Indeed. Electric car concept won't work IMO. Industry keeping blaming lack of infrastructure yada yada yada.

Nissan Leaf: 30k
Ford Focus: 21k
VW Golf: 19k

Why bother. Price is to dear. At the end of the day electricity to charge the car comes from predominately fossil fuels in Ireland. So you're relying on gimmicks such as cheaper night rate.

Complete and other rubbish.

robd

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I had heard some rumors the new DU Fleet, whenever that comes, would all have hybrid carriages. Don't know MN.

Most of it is expensive gimmick. It's regenerative breaking etc. which can send a charge back to grid or into battery when train is slowing down. The reality is that it accounts for a very small amount of electricity given back vs used, ads to the components needed, and thus will lead to lower reliability.

Modern engineering is about engineering out components.

I just don't buy it.

We should be looking more at building sustainable cities where we build offices in one central location (CBD such as IFSC) rather than spread around a motorway such as the M50 (CItywest, Park West, Sandyford Industrial etc.). Then we can build decent rail public transport where the economic benefit is high enough to justify the high capital costs.

L1011

The 1984 built to 1970s design DARTs have regenerative braking.

goingnowhere

MYOB wrote: »

The 1984 built to 1970s design DARTs have regenerative braking.

The technology that powered the 1984 DART didn't exist until the 1980's as it was solid state thyristor driven rather unique for DC train. British Rail was still using 1930's era gear in new trains until the late 1980's when GTO thyristors became available.

Regenerative braking costs nothing in weight or equipment its just a simple reconfigure of the control system. Net energy cost saving 10-15%

Rheostatic braking requires a large resistor grid under the floor or on the roof which does cost

n97 mini

robd wrote: »

Indeed. Electric car concept won't work IMO. Industry keeping blaming lack of infrastructure yada yada yada.

Nissan Leaf: 30k
Ford Focus: 21k
VW Golf: 19k

Why bother.

Here's a reason: €1.56 a litre, and rising!

The Golf tested did around 35mpg, so the Leaf will have a break-even period (vs Golf) of around 4 years on fuel alone, probably 3 if fuel prices continue to rise as steeply.

robd wrote: »

Price is to dear. At the end of the day electricity to charge the car comes from predominately fossil fuels in Ireland. So you're relying on gimmicks such as cheaper night rate.

Complete and other rubbish.

It doesn't really matter if the power is generated by burning baby albino seals, the cost per mile is only a fraction of what it is in a conventional car. Plus you have the option of using solar or wind etc.

The electric car is the way of the (very near) future.

robd

n97 mini wrote: »

Here's a reason: €1.56 a litre, and rising!

The Golf tested did around 35mpg, so the Leaf will have a break-even period (vs Golf) of around 4 years on fuel alone, probably 3 if fuel prices continue to rise as steeply.


It doesn't really matter if the power is generated by burning baby albino seals, the cost per mile is only a fraction of what it is in a conventional car. Plus you have the option of using solar or wind etc.

The electric car is the way of the (very near) future.

How can that be the case given input to fuel plants in Ireland is predominately gas (64%). Gas is subject to market increases just like petrol. It's a fossil fuel after all.

Wind is a myth.

If we built 3 nuclear plants I'd buy your argument. Until then I don't.

n97 mini

robd wrote: »

How can that be the case given input to fuel plants in Ireland is predominately gas (64%). Gas is subject to market increases just like petrol. It's a fossil fuel after all.

Oil and gas prices are not related. Natural gas prices are at a 10 year low. Oil prices are not far off where they were during the oil crisis of the 80's.

robd wrote: »

Wind is a myth.

While it's not the panacea, if you have space to install your own wind turbine the results can be interesting. They come in all sorts of sizes, and while Dundalk IT's is a big one, it's also generating over €100k worth of electricity a year.

In addition one of the problems with wind is storing the electricity. You electric car battery goes a long way to solving that issue, making wind more attractive that it is when just connected to the grid.

robd wrote: »

If we built 3 nuclear plants I'd buy your argument

How about if we import electricity generated using nuclear plants?

daithi_dearg

While Iarnród Eireann are charging about the 70 euros return/62 single Dublin to Cork when going to the station I don't see how any reasonable person could use public transport.

I'm sure there'll be some who'll argue why can't you just book your fare 8 weeks in advance I'm not that organised and I can just walk downstairs and I can drive it for only €50.

I love it the way people always compare cheap cars, or really basic cars with the Nissan Leaf.

The VW Golf 1.6 tdi 105 ps dsg is 27,500 Euro's for a Irish watered down spec. And I see a lot more of them on the roads, sure if you drive 100 + miles a day it makes sense. But there are a lot of people who don't and the Leaf's 60-70 mile range at 70 mph is good enough. Close to 100 I believe from reading reports between 40-55 mph and even 130 and slightly more possible.

Most car manufacturers over rate their mpg figures, so in turn must have higher C02 levels (not that I care about C02 )

Nissan Leaf is 30,000 If I was buying new I sure as hell wouldn't spend it on a golf and pay 1.55 per Litre of diesel!

Solar panels are now at a 1 USD per watt, really cheap. However try get a 3 kw solar pv system installed in Ireland for less than 20 grand ? Sure installation, inverter etc will cost but it doesn't add up to 20k.

3,000 Euros' for panels + 21 % vat =3630, + maybe 200 Euro's shipping, throw in 1 grand for inverter, another grand ??? for cables and accessories maybe someone from the e.s.b to certify it maybe 500 Euro's . The rest goes on installation!

You could import the solar panels for about 4 grand ? make a deal with some installer, surely shouldn't cost 20 grand + ???

Try get a 3kw wind turbine installed for less than 15000 euro's

Ireland's feed-in-tariff is a pathetic 9.5 cent per kw/hr, Germany's is 34 cent per kw/hr.

Nuclear as in Thorium I.E (L.F.T.R) has huge potential for the future and some countries developing Thorium such as India, Norway has 10,000 years of it. L.F.T.R has many benefits including the ability to switch on demand, no possibility of melt down, and 300 year waste storage compared to 10,000

1% of the waste of current uranium boiling water reactors and 1 tonne of Thorium = 4.1 million tonnes of coal or 250 tonnes of uranium.

Yes these reactors burn 99% of their fuel, uranium just 1%

SO Ireland could make Hydrogen for heavy goods vehicles or those who (think) they need 300 + miles e.v range. Use electricity for heating instead of kerosene, the list is mind boggling.

It would cost a few billion, but fossil fuels will cost hundreds of billions over the reactors lifetime and not including rising costs of energy.

IT CAN BE DONE! but ...................

We are prevented by backward politicians and a backward way of thinking in Ireland, with no desire for change!

There is no reason that Ireland couldn't have it's own L.F.T.R in 10-15 years!!!

foggy_lad

Stick 5 adults and their weekend luggage into the nissan leaf and see what its range becomes!

n97 mini

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no reason that Ireland couldn't have it's own L.F.T.R in 10-15 years!!!

Better again, side step the nuclear debate, build an interconnector and import the nuclear-generated electricity from the UK or France or further afield. Due to what Brendan Ogle terms "gravy" it'd probably work out cheaper to import it too.

foggy_lad

foggy_lad wrote: »

Stick 5 adults and their weekend luggage into the nissan leaf and see what its range becomes!

Do you have actual experience to know how that effects range ?

I'm going by actual experiences from owners on Leaf forums, but I'm still researching it.

I believe faster charging is far more important than 200-300 miles range.

Why pay a lot more for such range for the occasional holiday when you can have a car with the actual range requirements that's a lot cheaper ?

Obviously the Leaf isn't going to be perfect like anything that is released onto the marked. They have 10 min charging already, but when it will be available is beyond me. But you will probably still hear people bitch about waiting 5-10 mins for enough range to get home!

the 2012 model Leaf will see home charging brought up from 3kw to 6kw charging from 0-100 % in about 4 hours compared to 8. Will include battery heating, and 2013 sees the introduction of induction charging.

It's evolving far faster than I had imagined it would!

n97 mini

n97 mini wrote: »

Better again, side step the nuclear debate, build an interconnector and import the nuclear-generated electricity from the UK or France or further afield. Due to what Brendan Ogle terms "gravy" it'd probably work out cheaper to import it too.

Indeed you could have a point ? But why should we always have to wait for others to do something for us ? why can't we have our own energy and make our own hydrogen, heat our homes etc all from our generated energy!

The interconnector is already being built!

What if the U.K decide to abandon Nuclear ? we would still depend on fossil fuels. Though they are investigating Thorium they might not pursue it.

Once the fukushima disaster fades im memory and energy costs soar even more a whole new world of Nuclear will emerge I guarantee it, because there is simply not the energy source available that can meet our needs for the future that doesn't involve fossil fuels. Renewables will only ever play a small part!

The Mercedes B class F-Cell is scheduled for 2014 and not 2015 as originally planned.

240 miles range at 5000 psi and 400 miles range at 10000 psi.

Of course it won''t be available in Ireland.

The cost you can be sure will be a lot more than a Leaf.

The other thing with hydrogen is that we will be charged whatever greedy companies want to charge us and the Government can apply whatever tax they want on it that's why I'm a big advocate of Battery cars because you can install your own renewable energy system and electricity will always be cheaper than hydrogen!

I wonder how much we could make with excess from wind generation in Ireland ? instead of shutting down turbines as they do, they could make maybe enough hydrogen for transport ?

I don't think any one technology will "win" I think the future will have Hydrogen and battery cars, with hydrogen mainly for hgv use!

n97 mini

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed you could have a point ? But why should we always have to wait for others to do something for us ?

Because our lads tend to want gravy, which means we're usually the most expensive in Europe.

n97 mini

Deleted User wrote: »

The Mercedes B class F-Cell is scheduled for 2014 and not 2015 as originally planned.

What does this do that a Honda FCX Clarity didn't do three or four years ago?

n97 mini

n97 mini wrote: »

What does this do that a Honda FCX Clarity didn't do three or four years ago?

not sure, but I would say that now, both of them have improved efficiency, smaller and lighter and a lot cheaper.

I can't find out the price but from what I gather the Mercedes will be affordable to many.

In the future you will be able to hook your solar panels or wind turbines to a hydrogen generator and can store it in tanks.

If the E.S.B get their way we won't see hydrogen, they have convinced the government that they can provide the electricity needed for e.v's in the future.

We would end up importing it anyway like we do everything else.

70 Billion in the pension fund, 450,000 unemployed and the Government won't spend a bit of it to kick start job creation, such as renewable energy jobs in wind and solar could get a major boost if they offered grants for installation like in Germany and a decent feed-in-tariff. And it will help keep money in Ireland. No reason we can't make factories to create wind turbines and solar panels.

Lots the Government can do but the easiest thing to do is increase taxes and cut services and blame the banks for everything instead of actually doing something worth while!

n97 mini

You should know by now that the last thing to ever look for from an Irish government is leadership.

n97 mini

n97 mini wrote: »

You should know by now that the last thing to ever look for from an Irish government is leadership.

Indeed, at times I wonder is it our fault that we don't demand it ?

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

70 Billion in the pension fund

Try about 4 Billion since the banks raped it.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

Try about 4 Billion since the banks raped it.

oops I thought there was 70 billion left ?

LaFlammeRouge

Deleted User wrote: »

In the future you will be able to hook your solar panels or wind turbines to a hydrogen generator and can store it in tanks.

If the E.S.B get their way we won't see hydrogen, they have convinced the government that they can provide the electricity needed for e.v's in the future.

We would end up importing it anyway like we do everything else.

70 Billion in the pension fund, 450,000 unemployed and the Government won't spend a bit of it to kick start job creation, such as renewable energy jobs in wind and solar could get a major boost if they offered grants for installation like in Germany and a decent feed-in-tariff. And it will help keep money in Ireland. No reason we can't make factories to create wind turbines and solar panels.

Lots the Government can do but the easiest thing to do is increase taxes and cut services and blame the banks for everything instead of actually doing something worth while!

You need lots of open land and height to generate power from wind turbines. Putting a wind turbine in a urban housing estate will cause a net energy loss. You will actually waste more electricity running one. The grid-tie inverter will suck energy from the mains. David Cameron bolted a wind turbine to his house a few years ago. Complete waste.

You cannot store Hydrogen efficiently. It will be a non-runner for a long time.

Renewable energy does not create jobs, the money governments waste on subsidies and consumers waste on PSO levies and higher electricity bills negate any small benefit. This money is better invested in good CBA projects. No power plant has ever been decommisioned because of solar or wind. None.

We will never be able to compete against China in wind or solar products.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

oops I thought there was 70 billion left ?

I don't think there was 70 to begin with.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

I don't think there was 70 to begin with.

It was 22 at the peak, iirc.

LaFlammeRouge

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

You need lots of open land and height to generate power from wind turbines. Putting a wind turbine in a urban housing estate will cause a net energy loss. You will actually waste more electricity running one. The grid-tie inverter will suck energy from the mains. David Cameron bolted a wind turbine to his house a few years ago. Complete waste.

You cannot store Hydrogen efficiently. It will be a non-runner for a long time.

Renewable energy does not create jobs, the money governments waste on subsidies and consumers waste on PSO levies and higher electricity bills negate any small benefit. This money is better invested in good CBA projects. No power plant has ever been decommisioned because of solar or wind. None.

We will never be able to compete against China in wind or solar products.

Yes I had that view of subsidies for renewables, but thought that the jobs created might have been worth it, with the eventual pay off of importing less fossil fuels.

But I would rather tax payers money go into our own economy rather than it go to foreign companies!


We could make solar panels more expensive, but installers here are charging a massive amount for solar p.v and wind installations, if that was controlled and brought down to "today's" solar prices it might be possible. But 15+ grand for a 3kw solar p.v when panels can be got from the U.S or China for 1 usd per watt + vat, inverter, installation. Shouldn't add up to 15 k + Euro's ? I say 6-7 grand at the most, given the fact an installer has overheads ?


I know Wind turbines take up a lot of land, so more should be in the sea. That's why I was thinking the L.F.T.R Thorium reactors would be the best for Ireland.

I don't think there is much of an issue storing hydrogen these days ? underground tanks wouldn't cost that much more than petrol or diesel or natural gas ?

n97 mini

n97 mini wrote: »

It was 22 at the peak, iirc.

I could have sworn I heard them say there "was" 70 Billion in the pension fund, I obviously heard wrong, or wishful thinking!

Capt'n Midnight

robd wrote: »

How can that be the case given input to fuel plants in Ireland is predominately gas (64%). Gas is subject to market increases just like petrol. It's a fossil fuel after all.

Wind is a myth.

If we built 3 nuclear plants I'd buy your argument. Until then I don't.

ESB is getting close to 60% efficiency with their latest CCGT stations. So a lot less fossil fuel is needed per unit of electricity than before.


Wind is a bit low at the moment. And it's predictable in the time scale you need to bring a fossil fuel plant online. They are predicting little or no wind from tomorrow until Midday on Monday.
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/

Let's pretend that we could get 3 nukes built in a short enough timescale, on budget, no delays , no brown envelopes, no nimby's , no mother-of-all-screwups on the contract that cost the state hundreds of millions later on ( Westlink , Incenerator ) you endup with oversupply of power in summer.

Nuclear is a white elephant that's like the port tunnel. It works, but you can't help feeling that doing things a little differently could get the same result faster and cheaper. For the port tunnel they could have used the existing rail tracks from Dublin port including the one under the phoenix park, to depots where railway lines meet the M50 or even further afield. Or they could have moved Dublin port to Balbriggan. Instead we got a hole in the ground where the separation distance for tankers is 300m.

If everyone adopts nuclear the fuel cost will go up.
Yes you can recover Uranium from seawater, but you need a lot of petrochemical based sponges / chemicals to do it.


Value Day of Week Effective Date
Winter Night Valley 2928 MW Wednesday 22-12-10
Summer Night Valley 1786 MW Monday 04-08-08
Mid-day Peak 4410 MW Tuesday 21-12-10
Evening Peak 5090 MW Tuesday 21-12-10
Saturday Peak 4524 MW Saturday 09-01-10
Sunday Peak 4335 MW Sunday 10-01-10
Maximum Wind 1474 MW Saturday 26-11-11

Capt'n Midnight

Yawlboy wrote: »

Also He reckons the Nissan Leaf has a range of 160kms - in a UK car magazine I read recently they had trouble reaching 70 miles in one.

robd wrote: »

Indeed. Electric car concept won't work IMO. Industry keeping blaming lack of infrastructure yada yada yada.

Nissan Leaf: 30k
Ford Focus: 21k
VW Golf: 19k

Why bother. Price is to dear. At the end of the day electricity to charge the car comes from predominately fossil fuels in Ireland. So you're relying on gimmicks such as cheaper night rate.

Complete and other rubbish.

Another gimmick you are relying on is the Excise duty on fuel. I could be wrong but I don't see that disappearing any time soon. Isn't motor tax is lower too ?

ESB get nearly 60% efficiency on their best CCGT's and there is a good chance that some windpower will be in the mix. ( Without CCGT and renewables you'd probably be better off using a diesel hybrid. )

Not too sure on servicing costs, but replacing the battery in a few years time would be the biggie.

http://selfficiency.wordpress.com/

Last month, I travelled 1994.6km @ a cost of €23.10; based on diesel costing €1.45 (works out to be 15.93 litres worth), my Leaf reached an average of 125.21km/l or 353.7mpg —– That’s good. *

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

ESB is getting close to 60% efficiency with their latest CCGT stations. So a lot less fossil fuel is needed per unit of electricity than before.


Wind is a bit low at the moment. And it's predictable in the time scale you need to bring a fossil fuel plant online. They are predicting little or no wind from tomorrow until Midday on Monday.
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/

Let's pretend that we could get 3 nukes built in a short enough timescale, on budget, no delays , no brown envelopes, no nimby's , no mother-of-all-screwups on the contract that cost the state hundreds of millions later on ( Westlink , Incenerator ) you endup with oversupply of power in summer.

Nuclear is a white elephant that's like the port tunnel. It works, but you can't help feeling that doing things a little differently could get the same result faster and cheaper. For the port tunnel they could have used the existing rail tracks from Dublin port including the one under the phoenix park, to depots where railway lines meet the M50 or even further afield. Or they could have moved Dublin port to Balbriggan. Instead we got a hole in the ground where the separation distance for tankers is 300m.

If everyone adopts nuclear the fuel cost will go up.
Yes you can recover Uranium from seawater, but you need a lot of petrochemical based sponges / chemicals to do it.


Value Day of Week Effective Date
Winter Night Valley 2928 MW Wednesday 22-12-10
Summer Night Valley 1786 MW Monday 04-08-08
Mid-day Peak 4410 MW Tuesday 21-12-10
Evening Peak 5090 MW Tuesday 21-12-10
Saturday Peak 4524 MW Saturday 09-01-10
Sunday Peak 4335 MW Sunday 10-01-10
Maximum Wind 1474 MW Saturday 26-11-11

I hear you on the wind, and Nuclear, and I don't want to see Uranium reactors in Ireland ever, but Thorium is the best solution for Ireland given the fact their safety aspects, but being 99% efficient is another also, it can be switched on and off on demand something impossible with other reactors. And Thorium is very cheap and much cheaper than Uranium, and we could import it from Norway. L.F.T.R is going to be used in other parts of the world and sooner than we thought possible, India are investing heavily in it because they have their own Thorium reserves. Imagine being almost 100% energy independent ? Apart from importing the Thorium, and it's very cheap to run these L.F.T.R and especially as rising fossil fuels get higher and higher.

We need to invest now before our bills end up massively high and the cost of driving gets much higher.

You see 60% efficient gas stations is fine, but it's still an energy source we have to import at great cost and the E.S.B couldn't care less because at the end of the day all they have to do is pass the cost on to you and I.

At what cost will importing fuels have to get before we decided we made a huge mistake as we always have in the past, failure to plan for the future!

If I can at all I would import 5 or 6 kw solar panels and get a wind turbine and then get an installer to install it, I could even install the panels myself and erect the mast with local help. then get a professional spark to do the rest and certify it. That's the plan in the future if I'm Eventually in a position to move. 6kw + 6 kw of wind will go a long way to my plan of going off grid altogether!

Unfortunately you can only send a max of 5kw into the E.S.B's grid for a pathetic 9 cent per kw/hr. If the government only provided a grand for solar P.V and wind!

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another gimmick you are relying on is the Excise duty on fuel. I could be wrong but I don't see that disappearing any time soon. Isn't motor tax is lower too ?

ESB get nearly 60% efficiency on their best CCGT's and there is a good chance that some windpower will be in the mix. ( Without CCGT and renewables you'd probably be better off using a diesel hybrid. )

Not too sure on servicing costs, but replacing the battery in a few years time would be the biggie.

http://selfficiency.wordpress.com/

You won't replace the whole battery in regards to the Leaf, just the modules, whichever one is giving trouble. at a estimated price of 2k euro's? dollars ?

The Fluence battery can be leased at a cost of 90 euro's per month for a pathetic 15,000 kms. No thanks.

Renaults idea is that it will cost around the same as the Diesel to run, but people want much cheaper than petrol or diesel and is hardly an incentive to go electric. The only good thing is Renault own the battery, the leaf would still be the cheapest to run and would make a steal 2nd hand, you can get them from the U.K already for about 24,000 Euro's and soon 20k.

As usual the Irish Dealers charge a rip off 2nd hand price.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

I hear you on the wind, and Nuclear, and I don't want to see Uranium reactors in Ireland ever, but Thorium is the best solution for Ireland given the fact their safety aspects, but being 99% efficient is another also, it can be switched on and off on demand something impossible with other reactors.

99% efficient ?

You should clarify that by saying that it's easy to separate out Thorium 232 from it's ore and convert it to Uranium 253 and that almost all of it can be burned up in the reactor. And that there are relatively few medium life fission products. So 99% less fuel / 99% less radioactive waste.

Electrical production efficiency depends on the temperature of the steam produced and would be well below 50% when you take into account dual heat exchanges and pumping losses.

Natural Uranium has 0.72% U235. Depleted uranium (waste product from uranium enrichment) is about half that so the amount of radioactive waste starts at over well over 99.28% unless you are using a breeder reactor (which has it's own waste problems) The mix of isotopes in the enriched fuel is turned into a witches brew of nastiness by' the time it's been used. And unlike Thorium cycle there is simply far too much to burn up with excess neutrons.

Molten salt thorium would be good, but the technology has been in development since the 1960's so don't hold your breath.

We need to invest now before our bills end up massively high and the cost of driving gets much higher.

no. we should invest nothing. If we went 100% nuclear without pumped storage, we'd only need six , gigawatt reactors. In reality we'd need less so the R&D cost/benefit cost would be scary. We'd wait until they were available off the shelf. BUT the infrastructure we'd need to deploy until they were ready would replace them.

You see 60% efficient gas stations is fine, but it's still an energy source we have to import at great cost and the E.S.B couldn't care less because at the end of the day all they have to do is pass the cost on to you and I.

ESB need better PR.
They've said they halve carbon footprint by 2020, and be carbon neutral by 2035.

If the government only provided a grand for solar P.V and wind!

solar PV in Ireland ?
You're having a laugh

50% average cloud cover (less at night !)
Our lowest demand for leccy is when PV works best.

We have some of the best Wind and Wave in the world, and even though pumped storage is expensive we do have mountains near most large population centres that aren't already near normal hydro.


Solar PC in Ireland is only an option where you can't get / can't justify the price of an ESB connection / standing charge.

lists price of electricity - this is peak demand time of year, and you can see the price only gets above 60 (6c/KWhr) around 6pm in the evenings, so 9c / KW is already quite a subsidy

http://www.sem-o.com/pages/default.aspx

Trade Date CURRENCY FLAG RUN TYPE MAX SMP MIN SMP LWA Seven Day LWA
11/02/2012 EUR EA 276.170 42.050 69.131 80.093

Yes sorry, I meant they burn 99% of their fuel compared to uranium reactors which consume less than 1% of their fuel.

89% of the waste which is less than 1% of current reactors is safe enough for medical use after just 10 years!

I still think that billions spent on foreign fossil fuels would be better invested in Ireland in L.F.T.R when it becomes available, India and Japan are investing heavily in it, The U.K is also considering it. There is around 1% the waste than from uranium reactors and I'm sure we could manage that!

L.F.T.R would be the more sensible way to go until, fusion can be made stable enough, if ever! or we can spend all we want on gas and coal plants and keep paying increasing costs in energy.

Solar would work in Ireland for domestic use as part of a hybrid system including wind because we have very long summer daylight hours, and newer more efficient panels are more than capable of generating power even under cloudy conditions. Obviously you won't generate full power under cloudy conditions, but still well capable! Certainly I look forward to going that route in the future!

According to WiKi the average retail price of solar is 1.84 Euro per watt and not the 1 usd I read off another site!

Quote from Wiki.

"As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable:[55]

For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totalling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, as firms try to restore profitability, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation"

The future looks very interesting!

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common.

I'll say it again our peak PV matches our electricity demand valley.

In the US where they use air con for cooling PV makes a lot more sense



Also IF thorium breeders can be built economically we'd still have to wait ages for them to be built.

we'll have two 500MW interconnectors on line long before then, that's equilivant to a nuke plant

If we get a warm summer, and a very windy day, and maxed out hydro and interconnectors we could just about provide all the electricity in the state without any fossil fuel for one day. A PR stunt but it would be an interesting milestone.


Also for the cost of one nuke we could insulate a lot of buildings, that would reduce a lot of peak demand as homes that can be kept warm could be warmed up off peak

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also IF thorium breeders can be built economically we'd still have to wait ages for them to be built.

L.F.T.R would definitely be viable now, especially so in 15-20 years!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

we'll have two 500MW interconnectors on line long before then, that's equilivant to a nuke plant

If the British decide to abandon Nuclear (highly Doubtful) then we would be importing fossil fuels mainly!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If we get a warm summer, and a very windy day, and maxed out hydro and interconnectors we could just about provide all the electricity in the state without any fossil fuel for one day. A PR stunt but it would be an interesting milestone.

May be good but we can't store it yet ?

The flooding of some valley in Clare I think it was ? I don't remember the name of the project, but it seems like a great idea to have a GW/hr ? storage

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also for the cost of one nuke we could insulate a lot of buildings, that would reduce a lot of peak demand as homes that can be kept warm could be warmed up off peak

Well they missed a major opportunity in the boom with the shoddy building regulations! so we still need lots of power, and when you think about it, all the lost revenue to the government by lower tax received from fossil fuel use ? maybe they wanted it that way ? I wouldn't put anything past FF while they were in power!

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

L.F.T.R would definitely be viable now, especially so in 15-20 years!

So you suggest using a technology that's still expirimental after 47 years development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment 1965.
to replace the current ESB plan to halve 2008 carbon foot print by 8 years time and zero in 23 years time.

If the British decide to abandon Nuclear (highly Doubtful) then we would be importing fossil fuels mainly!

Scotland is big into renewables. The Severn barrage alone could supply this entire Island and other schemes up the coast would supply similar amounts.

May be good but we can't store it yet ?

The flooding of some valley in Clare I think it was ? I don't remember the name of the project, but it seems like a great idea to have a GW/hr ? storage

You'd need to build a (very expensive) pumped hydro satation and THEN run a power line from the cities. In contrast with the NI/GB interconnectors you only need to run the cable,

if you were counting on revenue from exporting the spirit of ireland power you'd have to build an interconnector.

Bottom line, we have the interconnectors and so use the UK as storage. Cheaper than a pumped station AND much quicker to implement. Interest payments on construction costs of a nuke before it enters service could probably cost more than an interconnector !

Well they missed a major opportunity in the boom with the shoddy building regulations! so we still need lots of power, and when you think about it, all the lost revenue to the government by lower tax received from fossil fuel use ? maybe they wanted it that way ? I wouldn't put anything past FF while they were in power!

house prices were at an all time high, the incidental % cost of putting in enough insulation for passive heating and shared ducting for common services just doesn't bear thinking about

also the big problem with nukes is that there has been a history of corruption, delays, massive cost overruns and stupid mistakes ( earthquake shields built backwards, not enough redundancy, lazy workers talking leaks into rebar sockets ) such that I'd be hesitant about any Irish company with political links getting the job. And if it wasn't done by an Irish company then we'd be affecting balance of payments ?

CIE

robd wrote: »

Most of it is expensive gimmick. It's regenerative breaking (sic) etc. which can send a charge back to grid or into battery when train is slowing down. The reality is that it accounts for a very small amount of electricity given back vs used, ad(d)s to the components needed, and thus will lead to lower reliability

That's not a logical conclusion. If not for regenerative braking, you'll end up dissipating the braking energy as heat into the atmosphere instead. WADR, you sound like you'd be arguing against condensers for steam engines and prefer to have the exhaust steam blast into the atmosphere.

And there are no added components when it comes to using the electric motor on an electric train powered by overhead wires for regenerative braking, so I don't know where you got that from.

robd wrote: »

Modern engineering is about engineering out components

Oh? It's not about actual technological breakthroughs anymore? Now you're sounding like an armchair engineer.

robd wrote: »

I just don't buy it.

We should be looking more at building sustainable cities where we build offices in one central location (CBD such as IFSC) rather than spread around a motorway such as the M50 (CItywest, Park West, Sandyford Industrial etc.). Then we can build decent rail public transport where the economic benefit is high enough to justify the high capital costs

Oh, so your solution is more expensive social engineering, which would cost the taxpayer way more over both the short and long run? Sounds like the ninth plank of Communism, which advocates "a more equable distribution of the populace over the country".

I just don't buy it. Try selling it elsewhere.

CIE

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Another interesting thing was the using bus a vital means of public transport. Could BRT be mentioned on it in the near future. Only mentioned hybrid buses as a means of a vital solution to public transport? I had heard some rumors the new DU Fleet, whenever that comes, would all have hybrid carriages. Don't know MN.

Any thoughts would be appreciated?

BRT is a joke. If you're going to reserve infrastructure, do it for railways. And stop listening to rumours.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So you suggest using a technology that's still expirimental after 47 years development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment 1965.
to replace the current ESB plan to halve 2008 carbon foot print by 8 years time and zero in 23 years time.

No I said viable now, If if it were commercially available.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

if you were counting on revenue from exporting the spirit of ireland power you'd have to build an interconnector.

Ah yeah the "spirit of Ireland" that's it. Would joining the interconnector not pay for itself in the long term ?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Bottom line, we have the interconnectors and so use the UK as storage. Cheaper than a pumped station AND much quicker to implement. Interest payments on construction costs of a nuke before it enters service could probably cost more than an interconnector !

Sure a Reactor would cost a lot, and then there is the waste to deal with, but compared to uranium reactors it's far cheaper. +the fact you don't need to build expensive cooling towers makes it much cheaper again and you don't need as many control operators. + fossil fuels are a lot more expensive than Thorium and getting more expensive.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

house prices were at an all time high, the incidental % cost of putting in enough insulation for passive heating and shared ducting for common services just doesn't bear thinking about

Failure of Government, to allow land owners to charge what they liked and not controlling the ridiculous high prices, but it was all to make it look like we were doing so well.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

also the big problem with nukes is that there has been a history of corruption, delays, massive cost overruns and stupid mistakes ( earthquake shields built backwards, not enough redundancy, lazy workers talking leaks into rebar sockets ) such that I'd be hesitant about any Irish company with political links getting the job. And if it wasn't done by an Irish company then we'd be affecting balance of payments ?

Well given the safety aspects of l.f.t.r and I would think that it gives a very compelling argument "for" nuclear, you can't have a melt down with a l.f.t.r reactor and no radioactive material can be released into the atmosphere.

It should be at least discussed when it becomes available.

I will still be installing my solar and wind in the future. I aim for at least 90% independence from the E.S.B. I want to drive electric too. Charging from my own renewable system would be really cool even if it takes 10+ years to payback at least I know my energy costs won't be going up!

My current needs per day are 6.3 KW/hrs per day, so that should be easily achievable ? A 3.0 kw solar P.V should at least generate 1-1.5 kw over 8 hrs would be 8 kw/hrs, not including sunny days or summer! Add wind turbine for more and for charging E.V!

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

No I said viable now, If if it were commercially available.

It's not. Nor will it be in the foreseeable future. And even if it were there are still many big issues. And it's not needed anyway.

Ah yeah the "spirit of Ireland" that's it. Would joining the interconnector not pay for itself in the long term ?

The Norned cable cable gave a return of 8% in the first two months. Interconnectors pay for themselves.

Spirit of Ireland can't under cut interconnectors simply because it would depend on them.

Sure a Reactor would cost a lot, and then there is the waste to deal with, but compared to uranium reactors it's far cheaper. +the fact you don't need to build expensive cooling towers makes it much cheaper again and you don't need as many control operators. + fossil fuels are a lot more expensive than Thorium and getting more expensive.

I'm going to need a link to the cooling towers thing. Because unless you use massive Stirling engines or mad stuff like MHD (Russians being mad* had a 25MW in use for a while)

Well given the safety aspects of l.f.t.r and I would think that it gives a very compelling argument "for" nuclear, you can't have a melt down with a l.f.t.r reactor and no radioactive material can be released into the atmosphere.

If anyone wanted to prevent one of those reactors being build here all you'd need to do is let the Ban Fluoride in Tap Water people know what the f stood for. (I'm only half joking)

It should be at least discussed when it becomes available.

the main use of thorium is that it is quite true to say that the nuclear industry had reactors that produced hundreds of times less waste than today's ones running back in the 1960's

My current needs per day are 6.3 KW/hrs per day, so that should be easily achievable ? A 3.0 kw solar P.V should at least generate 1-1.5 kw over 8 hrs would be 8 kw/hrs, not including sunny days or summer! Add wind turbine for more and for charging E.V!

3.0KW is when tracking the sun on a cloudless day

http://www.met.ie/climate/sunshine.asp

Ireland normally gets between 1400 and 1700 hours of sunshine each year.
.
The difference was considerable, with the summer of 1887 being twice as sunny as that of 1980.

table of hours of sunlight -
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/insolation-and-a-solar-panels-true-power-output/

In London in midwinter, a thirty square metre rooftop solar installation will generate an average of 125 W of electricity, enough for about ten low-energy light bulbs, or one incandescent bulb.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not. Nor will it be in the foreseeable future. And even if it were there are still many big issues. And it's not needed anyway.

Well I think if we had such a source or energy that we could make hydrogen, heat homes, and charge e.v's would be a great thing, and the fact we would be doing it here in Ireland would be even better and feck importing energy (apart form the Thorium)

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Spirit of Ireland can't under cut interconnectors simply because it would depend on them.

So the spirit of Ireland won't happen ? how about domestic use ?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm going to need a link to the cooling towers thing. Because unless you use massive Stirling engines or mad stuff like MHD (Russians being mad* had a 25MW in use for a while)

Funny you mention that, they use stirling engines in the new gas boilers to connect them to the grid, they generate electricity off the exhaust gas! Don't know if you can get them here yet ?

I'm working on the link!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If anyone wanted to prevent one of those reactors being build here all you'd need to do is let the Ban Fluoride in Tap Water people know what the f stood for. (I'm only half joking)

HAHA yeah

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the main use of thorium is that it is quite true to say that the nuclear industry had reactors that produced hundreds of times less waste than today's ones running back in the 1960's

Yeah isn't it typical ? the fact the U.S military stopped development because they wanted uranium reactors to make nukes from the waste! Such a shame!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

3.0KW is when tracking the sun on a cloudless day

Oh yeah I wouldn't expect to get 3kw form a 3kw system, but 1-2 kw is reasonable in cloudy conditions with modern panels! I should generate my needed 6.3 kw/hr per day from a 3 kw system and more. And obviously I would get more in summer and get paid 9 cent per kw/hr I don't use, I would of course add a wind turbine to the system.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I think if we had such a source or energy that we could make hydrogen

a complete waste of energy unless you have a very specific need for a lighter than air gas / gas with a high heat transfer rate

how about domestic use ?

80% of mgh
h , height is usually 250 meters for pumped storage
m is one tonne per cubic meter, the more square kilometers the better

Funny you mention that, they use stirling engines in the new gas boilers to connect them to the grid, they generate electricity off the exhaust gas! Don't know if you can get them here yet ?

http://news.calor.ie/?p=330

Oh yeah I wouldn't expect to get 3kw form a 3kw system, but 1-2 kw is reasonable in cloudy conditions with modern panels! I should generate my needed 6.3 kw/hr per day from a 3 kw system and more. And obviously I would get more in summer and get paid 9 cent per kw/hr I don't use, I would of course add a wind turbine to the system.

3KW is when the sun is splitting the stones, if you aren't wearing sunglasses then the sun isn't bright enough , our eyes and ears are logarithmic not linear , a bright moon light night is 1 Lux and you can navigate in it . Bright sunlight is over 100,000 Lux, overcast day is 10,000 Lux, very dark day is a lot less

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

LaFlammeRouge

Mad_Lad wrote: »

According to WiKi the average retail price of solar is 1.84 Euro per watt and not the 1 usd I read off another site!

Quote from Wiki.

"As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable:[55]

For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totalling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, as firms try to restore profitability, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation"

The future looks very interesting!

This website is pretty cheap for pv solar http://www.sunelec.com/

Not shilling BTW. It's an American site but could indicate where prices are heading here in Ireland. With thin film solar they are using newspaper printing techniques and printing the solar panels onto rolls of sheet metal.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

3KW is when the sun is splitting the stones, if you aren't wearing sunglasses then the sun isn't bright enough , our eyes and ears are logarithmic not linear , a bright moon light night is 1 Lux and you can navigate in it . Bright sunlight is over 100,000 Lux, overcast day is 10,000 Lux, very dark day is a lot less

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

Yes I know I'd hardly ever reach that 3kw, but I would expect it to supply at last half of my daily 6.3 kw/hr average.

That would be 3kw over the course of a day. And possible 2 times + in summer, due to long daylight hours.

The trick I think would be to buy a 500 watt panel, and inverter. and logging software and if I generate for example 250 watts in winter from that panel, then I know I should generate 1.5 kw form a 3kw system. If it doesn't work out I could sell the inverter and keep the panel to charge a lead acid that will in turn charge my electric bike.

The other way to install solar is to install yourself, use batteries as storage, lithium and not lead acid. That would be expensive.

2nd way is to connect it yourself via an e.s.b certified inverter to a 13 amp socket in the house, there are inverters that do this and uncertified inverters.

Downside of course is you won't get the feed-in-tariff but you won't have to spend money on batteries.

Connecting a wind turbine to the system would also be a great advantage, I would like to have around 10kw of renewable electricity, but the downside of that is that I need 3 phase for more than 5.5 kw according to the e.s.b.

Still even 5.5kw is a lot of energy if I could achieve it if ever I can move to a house that I have more space.

If I'm ever an e.v owner the power would go a hell of a long way to reducing my need for e.s.b power and would mean I would be driving almost for free and making the pay back time even shorter, especially with the feed-in-tariff as little as it is.

I still think they should offer some grants for domestic electricity generation, instead of giving it all to wind energy companies!