Edenderry Plant

Nukem

Back in October An Taisce won the case against BnM where the court revoked planning permission for continued operation of Edenderry plant.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/bord-na-móna-loses-offaly-power-plant-planning-case-1.2407326

BnM got a stay until April 2016, but there has been no communications to date on a further stay.

Anyone heard updates?

Macha

Nope just this story about it operating at a loss: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bord-na-mna-says-plant-operating-at-significant-loss-34550549.html

Nukem

Macha wrote: »

Nope just this story about it operating at a loss: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bord-na-mna-says-plant-operating-at-significant-loss-34550549.html

Mmmmm...........worrying

Operating at a loss and still being sub vented by the tax payer
http://www.cer.ie/docs/001034/CER15142%20PSO%20Levy%202015-16%20%20Decision%20Paper.pdf

ted1

Nukem wrote: »

Mmmmm...........worrying

Operating at a loss and still being sub vented by the tax payer
http://www.cer.ie/docs/001034/CER15142%20PSO%20Levy%202015-16%20%20Decision%20Paper.pdf

Explain how it's worrying.

machiavellianme

ted1 wrote: »

Explain how it's worrying.

It's an important plant for MW and voltage control on a corridor into Dublin where the power requirements are growing faster than the supply. Also, it's one that uses indigenous fuel (peat and biomass), meaning that a gas shortage wouldn't be as disastrous.

Nukem

Macha wrote: »

Nope just this story about it operating at a loss: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bord-na-mna-says-plant-operating-at-significant-loss-34550549.html

ted1 wrote: »

Explain how it's worrying.

A plant that's at best 40% efficient thermally, operating at a loss even with state funding, being part fuelled by one of the most CO2 intensive fuels in Ireland, that was taken to court recently about its environmental impact and still operates.

As well as we will probably miss our 2020 energy targets and be fined a few quid, whereby the 120 million sub venting peat plants could have been better served fully grant aiding more efficient renewables or converting this plant completely to biomass

Indigenous fuel source I agree with, but peat isn't going anywhere so why spend a considerable money digging it up to put it into a plant that's not the most efficient at the moment. Gas emissions are nearly half of that of peat in terms of CO2 compared with gas CCGTs being nearly 55% efficient and also natural gas being cheapest it's been in years?

Seems like the perfect time to maximise emissions reduction, efficiencies, and economics to better enable/develop renewables in Ireland.

ted1

Nukem wrote: »

A plant that's at best 40% efficient thermally, operating at a loss even with state funding, being part fuelled by one of the most CO2 intensive fuels in Ireland, that was taken to court recently about its environmental impact and still operates.

As well as we will probably miss our 2020 energy targets and be fined a few quid, whereby the 120 million sub venting peat plants could have been better served fully grant aiding more efficient renewables or converting this plant completely to biomass

Indigenous fuel source I agree with, but peat isn't going anywhere so why spend a considerable money digging it up to put it into a plant that's not the most efficient at the moment. Gas emissions are nearly half of that of peat in terms of CO2 compared with gas CCGTs being nearly 55% efficient and also natural gas being cheapest it's been in years?

Seems like the perfect time to maximise emissions reduction, efficiencies, and economics to better enable/develop renewables in Ireland.

I wouldn't say it's worrying, it was built to serve a purpose.
Plenty of plants get capacity payments, it's how the market and system operates.
Some plants are designed to run less than 500 hours a year.

Macha

I'd rather give more money to gas plants for capacity purposes than continue with this filthy, expensive, inefficient plant.

Even at that, demand response is very underdeveloped in Ireland as is interconnection with other markets. The faster we get these markets up and running, the less capacity payments taxpayers will have to pay for.

The market is there to serve a purpose, not the other way around. Capacity markets should not contribute to increased carbon emissions or other environmental degradation. They should also be equally open to interconnection and demand side response. That's not what we have in Ireland.

Markcheese

So would it be cheaper not to run it much ? Pay to keep it available but not actually use it unless necessary..
Or set it up to use more biomass and waste derived fuel .... ( cant that suiting dublin councils though because of the poolbeg incinerator)

ted1

Macha wrote: »

I'd rather give more money to gas plants for capacity purposes than continue with this filthy, expensive, inefficient plant.

Even at that, demand response is very underdeveloped in Ireland as is interconnection with other markets. The faster we get these markets up and running, the less capacity payments taxpayers will have to pay for.

The market is there to serve a purpose, not the other way around. Capacity markets should not contribute to increased carbon emissions or other environmental degradation. They should also be equally open to interconnection and demand side response. That's not what we have in Ireland.

Demand response cost 70k per MW + what ever the SEM price is and it's only ever being used once or twice.

Macha

ted1 wrote: »

Demand response cost 70k per MW + what ever the SEM price is and it's only ever being used once or twice.

Source? How much does Edenderry cost?

ted1

Macha wrote: »

Source? How much does Edenderry cost?

Source= me I work in the area.

Nukem

ted1 wrote: »

Source= me I work in the area.

Ah, not worrying = I work there 😜

ted1

Nukem wrote: »

Ah, not worrying = I work there 😜

No, but way to job no to conclusions. Demand response has not got to do with generation.
It's to do with shutting down loads such as cold storage warehouses instead of ramping up generation.

Your putting 1 and 1 together to get 3, demonstrates your lack of understanding. I

Macha

ted1 wrote: »

Source= me I work in the area.

OK. I'd still be interested to know what that cost is compared to the cost of Edenderry. And that cost should include the impact of air emissions from the plant including NOx, SOx, carbon emissions, mercury as well as any direct subsidies to the plant.

ted1

Macha wrote: »

OK. I'd still be interested to know what that cost is compared to the cost of Edenderry. And that cost should include the impact of air emissions from the plant including NOx, SOx, carbon emissions, mercury as well as any direct subsidies to the plant.

What about energy security , independence and energy mix. You need to put a price on them too.

Nukem

ted1 wrote: »

Your putting 1 and 1 together to get 3, demonstrates your lack of understanding. I

Not really - I stated fact, which I can back up with references. You have put yourself as the source to all your information - that's sounds more like opinion

I never claimed to be an expert, just interested having done some work in the area - hence the 'advice' category in the subject line.

L

machiavellianme wrote: »

It's an important plant for MW and voltage control on a corridor into Dublin where the power requirements are growing faster than the supply. Also, it's one that uses indigenous fuel (peat and biomass), meaning that a gas shortage wouldn't be as disastrous.

I'm not aware of it being particularly important for voltage control - it doesn't make it into any published operational constraint I've seen.

Macha

ted1 wrote: »

What about energy security , independence and energy mix. You need to put a price on them too.

Sure and in a technology neutral market, equally open to generation, interconnection and demand response, you let them compete for energy security or rather system adequacy.

As for energy mix, we can diversify but it doesn't and shouldn't include peat. Same for independence. The fastest way to reduce your energy independence is to use up your finite indigenous resources. It's short-sighted.

ted1

Macha wrote: »

Sure and in a technology neutral market, equally open to generation, interconnection and demand response, you let them compete for energy security or rather system adequacy.

As for energy mix, we can diversify but it doesn't and shouldn't include peat. Same for independence. The fastest way to reduce your energy independence is to use up your finite indigenous resources. It's short-sighted.

We have a limited fuel supply in the country. Peat is the main one, to maintain our energy security we need to have it available. It's one of the only energy source we have to give us some what independence, with regards energy security we could be cut off from suppliers so we need to have our own readily available.

We've caught all the low hanging fruit when it comes to demand response and The operators in Eirgrid still aren't sure how to call for demand.

ted1

Nukem wrote: »

Not really - I stated fact, which I can back up with references. You have put yourself as the source to all your information - that's sounds more like opinion

I never claimed to be an expert, just interested having done some work in the area - hence the 'advice' category in the subject line.

I dint need to back up my facts, as they are from first hand knowledge and I would be an expert in the field of demand response.

Macha

ted1 wrote: »

We have a limited fuel supply in the country. Peat is the main one, to maintain our energy security we need to have it available. It's one of the only energy source we have to give us some what independence, with regards energy security we could be cut off from suppliers so we need to have our own readily available.

We've caught all the low hanging fruit when it comes to demand response and The operators in Eirgrid still aren't sure how to call for demand.

Fuel-based energies aren't the only sources of indigenous energy we have.

It is stupid to burn peat for electricity and I will never agree otherwise. It destroys important habitat, releases masses of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants that have real-life impacts on human health like chronic respiratory diseases, lower IQ in babies, etc.

We take this material and we burn it in a plant efficiency of 38.4%. That means that the plant is not capable of capturing almost two thirds of the energy released by burning the peat. It's the height of stupidity.

For someone working in demand response, you don't seem that enthusiastic about it. There is plenty of additional demand response potential in Ireland. We hardly even have any aggregators for the smaller stuff, no dynamic pricing, no neutral DSO to facilitate the market.

Macha

ted1 wrote: »

I dint need to back up my facts, as they are from first hand knowledge and I would be an expert in the field of demand response.

[mod]Mod hat on here. Yes, this is a science-based forum and I'm afraid you do need to back up your assertions when asked to by another poster.[/mod]

Nukem

ted1 wrote: »

I dint need to back up my facts, as they are from first hand knowledge and I would be an expert in the field of demand response.

Fair enough - but it's concerning that I originally posted a query to see if anyone had an update on the ruling. As an expert, you have not indicated if you know or don't know anything concerning the plant operation.

Also concerning is that you , as an expert in DSM don't find it worrying if peat plants go off line due to EIS rulings, potentially leaving ireland without power generation capacity. Regardless of fuel source.

Would you please confirm if you know of any update on the above plant or can provide any material to an update ruling.

Thank you

ted1

Macha wrote: »

Fuel-based energies aren't the only sources of indigenous energy we have.

It is stupid to burn peat for electricity and I will never agree otherwise. It destroys important habitat, releases masses of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants that have real-life impacts on human health like chronic respiratory diseases, lower IQ in babies, etc.

We take this material and we burn it in a plant efficiency of 38.4%. That means that the plant is not capable of capturing almost two thirds of the energy released by burning the peat. It's the height of stupidity.

For someone working in demand response, you don't seem that enthusiastic about it. There is plenty of additional demand response potential in Ireland. We hardly even have any aggregators for the smaller stuff, no dynamic pricing, no neutral DSO to facilitate the market.

Macha what dispatchable indegnious resources have we?

There may be plenty of opportunities and indeed domestic is being trialled but that's years away, smart meters need to be rolled out nationwide. So it's not good for our present needs.

At the moment a plant like a MDF one can give up 10MW , which is a what 5,000 homes can offer.

ted1

Macha wrote: »

[mod]Mod hat on here. Yes, this is a science-based forum and I'm afraid you do need to back up your assertions when asked to by another poster.[/mod]

What assertion do you want backed up

ted1

Nukem wrote: »

Fair enough - but it's concerning that I originally posted a query to see if anyone had an update on the ruling. As an expert, you have not indicated if you know or don't know anything concerning the plant operation.

Also concerning is that you , as an expert in DSM don't find it worrying if peat plants go off line due to EIS rulings, potentially leaving ireland without power generation capacity. Regardless of fuel source.

Would you please confirm if you know of any update on the above plant or can provide any material to an update ruling.

Thank you

No I don't know any update on the ruling. But the link had a PPA for 15 years starting in 2000. It would be worth looking in to was it renewed.

I can't see it going away, they have bring increasing their biomass % and they'll agree a new limit.