Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Shannon Water Pipeline - Parteen to Dublin

24

Comments



  • 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?




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




  • 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?




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




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




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




  • 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




  • 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




  • 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 ;-)




  • 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.




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • How much electricity is it going to take to pump 2 metres/sec of water to Dublin? Is there any scope to generate power somewhere along the line for those half time spikes in power demand?

    If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.





  • Don't know the technical design. It would have been possible to build a storage on some hill enroute. But that would not be the core business of Irish Water.
    It would also cost high on the capital side.
    That would simply be an electrical storage facility. About 80% efficient.
    Only point is there will be almost zero drag on the water in the pipe. So once you get it moving, no problem. May be their will stage pumping?
    See your post Deedsie.




  • Deedsie wrote: »
    Gravity takes care of a lot of the journey. I think there is a pump at Cloughjordan, Co. Tipperary to pump the water but that is it.

    AFAIK there is a pressure break point at Cloughjordan, approx 100m above sea level, that's the highest point on the pipe, after that it's gravity all the way to Dublin. I presume the pump will be at the Shannon end?

    If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.





  • That would make sense, Blue. 100m head and let it flow.




  • Yesterday I read in the Irish Examiner that the reason the Parteen Basin was chosen over Lough Rea was because the Parteen basin is a man made reservoir which resulted from the construction of the Ardnacrucha dam. The Parteen Basin is further from Dublin than Lough Rea and the pipeline would be more expensive but in any case, it is apparently deemed more politically acceptable because Parteen is not a natural lake. What a load of rubbish! The real reason is because Lough Rea may one day be required to produce shale gas due to geopolitical tensions with Russia. The pollution that would cause makes Lough Rea unsuitable as a reliable source of water for Dublin`s leaking water pipes.




  • blue5000 wrote: »
    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.
    There was something about that in yesterday`s Irish Examiner. During construction, they will need 50m of ground to work on (presumably 25m each side of the pipe) and after construction, the pipe will have a 20m exclusion zone. As for the pipe itself, I don`t know.




  • It makes more sense to take it from further up the Shannon. The pipe would be shorter and a lot cheaper. This was the original plan that was around as long ago as fifteen years ago I think.

    This original plan met a lot of local opposition due to the impact on flows downriver from the pipe. (Much overblown in my opinion but anyway).

    From what I can tell Parteen has been chosen for political rather than engineering reasons. There is a smaller proportional loss as the flow is much greater at Parteen. And less people downriver to get annoyed.

    @realitykeeper I am not convinced. If the Shannon is polluted at Lough Rea it will still be polluted at Parteen.




  • Bray Head wrote: »

    @realitykeeper I am not convinced. If the Shannon is polluted at Lough Rea it will still be polluted at Parteen.
    Not nearly as much. Fracking can add dissolved hydrocarbons in the form of methane gas to the water supply but these are gradually released into the atmosphere as the water flows from the relatively stagnant waters of the lake to the faster flowing river. Then there is the downstream catchment area with many unaffected tributaries diluting those pollutants.

    Moreover, opposition by landowners over the greater distance from Parteen would be every bit as staunch as it would be by farmers further north had the route from Loughrea been chosen. The claim that Parteen was chosen for political reasons seems to me to be suspect because it does not make sense. I guess they could hardly say we may need Loughrea for fracking in the future. If I am correct, the "political reasons" excuse is for political reasons, but the Parteen basin is chosen for strategic reasons.

    In any case, people in the west generally oppose water being pumped from any part of the Shannon to Dublin. I am from Cork and I agree with them.




  • I think a lot of landowners are looking forward to a payday:)


  • Advertisement


  • Bray Head wrote: »
    I think a lot of landowners are looking forward to a payday:)

    Come now, how about all those motorway squashed into Dublin and millionaires being made from the cabbage patch in the corner of the garden. Remember the motorway song?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKAvjXSdAD0
    The Irish paid for what Dublin got. History repeats.


Advertisement