Shannon Water Pipeline - Parteen to Dublin

blue5000

Does anyone know if this will definitely go ahead? If it does how big will the pipe be and how deep? Any proposed routes yet?

Thanks.

blue5000

Anyone?

Limerick Dude

blue5000 wrote: »

Anyone?

Currently going through the planning process I believe.

http://www.watersupplyproject.ie/

hans aus dtschl

Forgive my ignorance of the topic, but since they'll have to purify the water regardless, would it not make more sense to simply purify water from the Irish sea? The cost of the extra purification would be offset by the need to maintain a whole network from the West to the East, and negotiate with so many stakeholders along the way?

Would be delighted to know any reasons I'm wrong on this, as it's far from my area of expertise.

I can see the above website has stated that the desalination is one of the options, but they decline to mention any of the negatives, only presenting the positives of the Parteen Basin option.

Alun

Desalination is a whole different process to purification, and much more costly.

hans aus dtschl

Alun wrote: »

Desalination is a whole different process to purification, and much more costly.

Thanks Alun, you reckon the cost factor is so significant as to be undesirable in this case?

Alun

I don't know any specifics about costs, but generally desalination plants are currently only used when there's really no option to take water from the ground in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as they're so expensive to run, with energy costs being a big factor, but of course that's pretty irrelevant in those countries.

Idbatterim

yeah I read desalination is very costly...

Alun

The old fashioned way of doing it is by distillation, which is of course pretty energy hungry, but again of no importance to the Saudi's etc. Newer methods use reverse osmosis which works well and is more energy efficient but doesn't really scale up to industrial scales as well, as I understand it.

Sam Russell

It looks like the plans are for moving clean water from the Shannon to Dublin. Would it be better to move the water before purification to Dublin and fill the reservoirs with it?

How big a pipe (diameter) are they talking about?

Alun

Sam Russell wrote: »

It looks like the plans are for moving clean water from the Shannon to Dublin. Would it be better to move the water before purification to Dublin and fill the reservoirs with it?

As I understand it there's also a problem with processing capacity at the two major reservoirs' purification plants, so this might relieve that to some degree, or at least give them some breathing space while they upgrade the existing facilities.

Mearings

Would this ease the flooding such as we have had this year?

ManAboutCouch

Mearings wrote: »

Would this ease the flooding such as we have had this year?

In a word, no. As I understand it the capacity of the pipe is to be 4 cubic metres of water per second (cumecs). The current supply of water in Dublin is about 540 Million litres per day, which is 6.25 cumecs.

The average flow of the Shannon at Limerick is more than 200 cumecs, further upstream at Athlone it is around 100 cumecs. In times of flooding these numbers can treble or quadruple, so the pipleline would make very little difference.

db

It will make absolutely no impact in the flooding, except possibly make it worse. During normal water levels the majority of water on the Shannon is diverted via Ardnacrusha which has a capacity of 400 cumecs. There is a minimum flow of water through the old river of 10 cumecs and this would be the rate for the majority of the year as the ESB will take as much as possible up to the max. In February this year the rate through the river reached 470 cumecs.

Part of the reason the old river course is unable to handle the volume in a flood is due to the amount of vegetation that has grown in the river due to the low level of water 95% of the time. If the level in the river is reduced further to divert water to Dublin and keep the ESB happy, the river bed will become more overgrown than it is already and the next flood will be worse.

Carawaystick

db wrote: »

Part of the reason the old river course is unable to handle the volume in a flood is due to the amount of vegetation that has grown in the river due to the low level of water 95% of the time. If the level in the river is reduced further to divert water to Dublin and keep the ESB happy, the river bed will become more overgrown than it is already and the next flood will be worse.

Ah, that makes sense now about the flooding. So that floooding at Clonlara was from the main Shannon course flooding and being held in by the headrace canal?

db

This is a great explanation of how the canal and the river flow rates are managed. I live a couple of hundred yards from the river and it is not much more than a stream at the moment, as it is almost all the time.

prunudo

Considering its crossing half the country, effecting 500 landowners isn't that bad, although I'm sure they won't it that way.

Bray Head

Imagine you had a state agency with its own funding stream tasked with the provision of transport infrastructure, which didn't have to go near a politician to get approval for large projects........

hannible the cannible

I can see the farmers loving this , how much will it cost to pacify them into submission I wonder

gctest50

hannible the cannible wrote: »

I can see the farmers loving this , how much will it cost to pacify them into submission I wonder

Compulsory purchase and a pair of dozers

Water John

This pipe like gas pipes etc. will mean disruption, loss of production for possibly 2 years. It will then have a wayleave attached to it.
It is a public utility for the public good. It thus is a balance of rights. A payment to those landowners is the correct mechanism.

funnyname

Throw in a greenway while they're at it

Bray Head

Water John wrote: »

This pipe like gas pipes etc. will mean disruption, loss of production for possibly 2 years. It will then have a wayleave attached to it.
It is a public utility for the public good. It thus is a balance of rights. A payment to those landowners is the correct mechanism.

I agree. The issue is that most of this land would be a fraction of its value if there were not large area-based payments coming from Brussels.
I wonder how much has been spent over the years on land acquisition costs which are compensation for loss of a subsidy?

Carawaystick

All our Natural Gas came into the facility just east of the Motorway at the centre here
There's 2 pipes in , and 3 out

And wayleaves associated for them.

There's the map of gas pipelines around the country, and there was no great outcry getting most of them built by the ifa or icmsa.

This is just the farmers trying to squeeze money

Sam Russell

Why could the new pipeline not follow the route of one of the gas lines?

(for at least some of the distance)

Alun

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why could the new pipeline not follow the route of one of the gas lines?

(for at least some of the distance)

Just a guess, but I'd imagine the route for a water pipeline would be more sensitive to elevation changes than for a gas pipeline.

tipptom

Water John wrote: »

This pipe like gas pipes etc. will mean disruption, loss of production for possibly 2 years. It will then have a wayleave attached to it.
It is a public utility for the public good. It thus is a balance of rights. A payment to those landowners is the correct mechanism.

Heard the guy with Pat Kenny yesterday mentioning 4 years.

plodder

Alun wrote: »

Just a guess, but I'd imagine the route for a water pipeline would be more sensitive to elevation changes than for a gas pipeline.

On that point, I watched the construction of the gas pipeline that crosses North county Dublin. It was interesting that the pipe was shaped to match the topology of the route exactly (as far as I could see). So, I guess it could be buried in a trench that was at a fixed depth the whole route. I doubt you would have that luxury with a water pipe.

Throw in a greenway while they're at it

That would be nice, but IW clearly have no interest and I'm sure it would raise the hackles of land owners somewhat more. Though, I presume the 20m corridor has to be effectively sterilised (from a development point of view) for ever more.

Water John

Yes, elevation should be a key issue for water pipe. I see rural houses built quite near the gas line. That element should only be a slight inconvenience.

Hopefully, it will be done in sections. One would hope that those civils would only take one season for any location.
Cannot see why there wouldn't be full land restoration. No need to get too excited. Any piece of infrastructure and a whole heap of people seem to loose their nut.

This is obviously a diff plan from the Bord Na Mona proposal. This had a holding reservoir in the midlands somewhere.

blue5000

It'll be some PIA when it starts leaking in a 100 years time.:(

Water John

One word Blue, Philmac.

Bray Head

There was a piece on this on Sean O'Rourke yesterday. RT are legally obliged to be balanced, so they had a guy on who opposed the pipe.
He was making absurd claims that up to 26% of the flow of the Shannon (from just above Limerick no less!) would be diverted to Dublin.
Also claims that the east had no need for the water. This might be a reasonable contention (I don't think so personally) but he gave zero evidence to back it up.
In fairness Sean O'Rourke challenged him plenty, but really, should these kind of nonsense arguments get as far as the airwaves on what is supposed to be factual programming?

Water John

If memory is right, it's 2%.
Any proposal brings out the nut cases.

Bray Head

Am I right in thinking that the original proposal of a decade or more ago involved a (shorter) route from around Athlone?

And that the decision to take it out south of Lough Derg is deemed less controversial (although more expensive) because you would be taking a smaller share of the Shannon's flow at that point?

Water John

Did not hear of the reason for the longer route. The 2% comes from the first proposal.

db

Bray Head wrote: »

There was a piece on this on Sean O'Rourke yesterday. RT are legally obliged to be balanced, so they had a guy on who opposed the pipe.
He was making absurd claims that up to 26% of the flow of the Shannon (from just above Limerick no less!) would be diverted to Dublin.
Also claims that the east had no need for the water. This might be a reasonable contention (I don't think so personally) but he gave zero evidence to back it up.
In fairness Sean O'Rourke challenged him plenty, but really, should these kind of nonsense arguments get as far as the airwaves on what is supposed to be factual programming?

Water John wrote: »

If memory is right, it's 2%.
Any proposal brings out the nut cases.

It's important to remember that the river is split below Lough Derg at the Parteen Weir where the headrace canal diverts water to Ardnacrusha. For most of the year the original river only has 10 cumecs released into it while the remainder up to a maximum of 400 cumecs goes into the canal. If the pipe has a capacity of 4 cumecs that is 40% of what normally goes into the river. If the minimum flow into the river is maintained then it won't be affected but if they reduce the river any further it will be an ecological disaster. Most of the river channel between the Parteen Weir and just above Limerick is overgrown with alluvial forest and this was the cause of the flooding last year.

Ardnacrusha was a magnificent feat of engineering for its time and it has been a great resource for the country but it has served its purpose and I think the water should slowly be returned to the river. As the river increases capacity the canal could then be available to prevent flooding by taking the taking the excess from the river.

db

Deedsie wrote: »

Would it not be wiser to upgrade Ardnacrusha and try and generate more energy from our natural resources?

In the current international climate you would imagine we should be aiming for energy self sufficiency as much as possible? Hydro, wind, wave, solar etc

We will need to make the most of our own resources and not rely so heavily on FDI and importing energy etc.

From Wikipedia

When built, Ardnacrusha had the capacity to supply power for the entire country. Currently, it accounts for around 2-3% of the ESB's overall power output. Given the small overall amount of power produced per cubic meter, there is a substantial case for increasing water flow to the natural channel, now that Arnacrusha is producing so small a proportion of ESB's power. For example, increasing the flow of the river to 50 m3/s would reduce Ardnacrusha's capacity by 1/10 (flow reduced by 40 m3/s), or 8 megawatts; less than 0.3% of ESB's national capacity, whilst increasing the water flow to the natural channel 5-fold. This would have a major beneficial effect on the condition of the river south of O'Briens Bridge.

It would need a complete rebuild of the power station to upgrade Ardnacrusha and I can't see how it would make any major impact on the generating capacity of the country.

This shot from Google Earth shows how the alluvial forest has encroached on the river below the dam.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.7046448,-8.5191356,1756m/data=!3m1!1e3

Water John

Nenagh already takes its water from the Shannon. Most towns already have their own adequate treatment systems.

I presume their will be balancing, so that the river flow is not diminished.

Not for or against the project. But the information should be put out their fully.
Let people see the case for it. Those proposing must make their case.
It needs to be scrutinised, rationally.

Why it needs to be done. Why it needs to be done, this way.

Carawaystick

Would it be better to slowly increase the flow rate in the original river to say 50 cumecs to scour the bed better, and this would provide a buffer for Ardnacrusha to take an extra 40 cumecs when there's a flood, instead of the river silting up like now?

I'd imaging there's little extra efficiency available in installing new turbines now compared to the originals, and there'd be significant cost to install new turbines. So that's a non-runner. There's very little scope for any extra hydro power in Ireland, that hasn't already been built.

What was the flooding like before the hydro station was built?
What was the peak flow in the floods last year in the river and canal?

Regarding the Shannon water piped to Dublin unavailable for the esb, I'd expect there would be an amount of extra water available in the Liffey to somewhat compensate, like the reserve in Blessington lake could be reduced from 120 days to say 80 days.
This would allow the esb generate more power there.

I presume there'd just be an increased pso levy to cover the cost of the esb not generating as much electricity in Ardnacrusha.

Carawaystick

Would it be better to slowly increase the flow rate in the original river to say 50 cumecs to scour the bed better, and this would provide a buffer for Ardnacrusha to take an extra 40 cumecs when there's a flood, instead of the river silting up like now?

I'd imaging there's little extra efficiency available in installing new turbines now compared to the originals, and there'd be significant cost to install new turbines. So that's a non-runner. There's very little scope for any extra hydro power in Ireland, that hasn't already been built.

What was the flooding like before the hydro station was built?
What was the peak flow in the floods last year in the river and canal?

Regarding the Shannon water piped to Dublin unavailable for the esb, I'd expect there would be an amount of extra water available in the Liffey to somewhat compensate, like the reserve in Blessington lake could be reduced from 120 days to say 80 days.
This would allow the esb generate more power there.

I presume there'd just be an increased pso levy to cover the cost of the esb not generating as much electricity in Ardnacrusha.

Water John

Not sure of the output of Ardnacrusha Hydro but most of these are used more for balancing supply, not base load. They would possibly be switched on and off regularly as in, many times a day.

plodder

db wrote: »

It's important to remember that the river is split below Lough Derg at the Parteen Weir where the headrace canal diverts water to Ardnacrusha. For most of the year the original river only has 10 cumecs released into it while the remainder up to a maximum of 400 cumecs goes into the canal. If the pipe has a capacity of 4 cumecs that is 40% of what normally goes into the river. If the minimum flow into the river is maintained then it won't be affected but if they reduce the river any further it will be an ecological disaster. Most of the river channel between the Parteen Weir and just above Limerick is overgrown with alluvial forest and this was the cause of the flooding last year.

Ardnacrusha was a magnificent feat of engineering for its time and it has been a great resource for the country but it has served its purpose and I think the water should slowly be returned to the river. As the river increases capacity the canal could then be available to prevent flooding by taking the taking the excess from the river.

As far as I understand it, this is what they are doing. The ESB is getting compensation for the loss of generation capacity, which in the overall scheme of things is not hugely significant. I don't think there is any way to increase output from our river hydro resources. They are all fully exploited as it is.

db

Carawaystick wrote: »

Would it be better to slowly increase the flow rate in the original river to say 50 cumecs to scour the bed better, and this would provide a buffer for Ardnacrusha to take an extra 40 cumecs when there's a flood, instead of the river silting up like now?

I'd imaging there's little extra efficiency available in installing new turbines now compared to the originals, and there'd be significant cost to install new turbines. So that's a non-runner. There's very little scope for any extra hydro power in Ireland, that hasn't already been built.

What was the flooding like before the hydro station was built?
What was the peak flow in the floods last year in the river and canal?

Regarding the Shannon water piped to Dublin unavailable for the esb, I'd expect there would be an amount of extra water available in the Liffey to somewhat compensate, like the reserve in Blessington lake could be reduced from 120 days to say 80 days.
This would allow the esb generate more power there.

I presume there'd just be an increased pso levy to cover the cost of the esb not generating as much electricity in Ardnacrusha.

Even now the river can take approx 300 cumecs comfortably, it will start flooding at around 400 cumecs. Last year it topped out at 470 cumecs with the canal running at 400. One of the difficulties is that the Parteen Basin reservoir is kept close to capacity so even if you know there is an extended period of rain on the way the level in the reservoir can't be dropped in advance. It then becomes a balancing act between flooding below the weir and the reservoir overflowing.

To give an idea of the extent of the flooding last year, there is a castle ruin about 1km from the river that was completely surrounded by water.

If you look around there are fantastic photographs of massive salmon caught in the area of the river I linked above. The salmon population on the river has been more or less wiped out at this stage.

To get back on subject, if the water to be diverted is taken from the ESB supply then there will be no impact on the river but I would like to see a guarantee in the plans to this effect.

Carawaystick

db wrote: »

To give an idea of the extent of the flooding last year, there is a castle ruin about 1km from the river that was completely surrounded by water.

Saw how far the flooding stretched alright.

db wrote: »

To get back on subject, if the water to be diverted is taken from the ESB supply then there will be no impact on the river but I would like to see a guarantee in the plans to this effect.

I presume the EIS will need to detail this, or abp will be asked to impose it as a condition.

plodder

As far as I know, water levels in that region of the Shannon are regulated and it's the ESB that has the obligation and the control of the levels through the power station and the weir at Parteen. So, except at times where there is an excess of water, this scheme will be taking the ESB's water that would otherwise have been used for hydro power. And some compensation arrangement has to be agreed for that. But, from what I can see the existing rules regarding water levels aren't being changed.

wildgreen

Environmental Impact Assessment and final options appraisal report available here: http://www.watersupplyproject.ie/publications/

gctest50

Water John wrote: »

Not sure of the output of Ardnacrusha Hydro but most of these are used more for balancing supply, not base load. They would possibly be switched on and off regularly as in, many times a day.

They should flatten Ardnacrusha hydro and a few more and replace them with a modern nuclear plant


http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/10/02/biosci.biw117.full

Wanderer78

Deedsie wrote:

I want Ireland to be energy self sufficient, harnessing renewable energy and nuclear are probably the only possibility of that ever happening?

I've been thinking about this for years now and I think you could be right, but getting a nuclear option passed in Ireland will be impossible. It's a bit hypocritical to get nuclear power from other states. Renewables all the way

murphaph

At least because we never bite the bullet and build anything we don't run the risk of doing an Austria on the whole nuclear power thing ;-)

Wanderer78

Deedsie wrote: »

Oh I am totally in favour of renewable energies first and foremost. And I wouldnt be closing down Ardnacrusha.

I dont know how many Irish people have ever actually thought about the nuclear energy option in Ireland. I know there were huge protests in the 70's etc but Id be interested to hear how the conversation would go today.

Do we always want to rely on importing energy and worrying about the global political climate.

all for renewables as well but im not convinced it can produce our future power needs, not with current technology anyway but hopefully that ll change in the future. no i wouldnt like to see Ardnacrusha closing either.

id say we re not alone in thinking nuclear may need to become an option for our power needs. it currently would be impossible to implement though so we must look at other options. it would be an interesting conversation to day though but i think majority would still oppose.

becoming more energy self-sufficient is a good long term approach as i can see the world becoming a far more complex and unstable place regarding these issues.

unfortunately i believe we wont approach these problems until its too late.

Water John

Hydro plants fulfil a different function in Ireland and are used to correct spikes and dips in usage. Think of half time in the match with the All Blacks on Sat when everyone goes and plugs in the kettle etc. Switch in for a short time.
It is not base load, which Moneypoint is.
The usual Nuclear plants are also base load, cannot be altered quickly. The use of Thorium Salt Reactor, combined with RE looks the best long term option.
Give RE priority and have TS Plants varying to give total needed output.