hoo-haha about wind turbines in Kerry.....

lalababa

I just quickly read through an article on Breakingnews.ie.
About people including some low level politicians complaining 'bout the number/size/proximity to dwellings/planning process/permissions granted/quality of life/blight on landscape/tourism inhibitor...etc. of wind turbines in Kerry spec. North West Kerry and/or Geneeveguille.
According to article there are circa 317 turbines in Kerry with a further 38 in construction.
Has anybody got stats./good guess for the output of the 317 or potential output of the 317+38 turbines versus the total consumption of electricity in kerry?
Or educated guesses on total consumption of Kerry and how and what size and number of WTs would be needed to match that yearly??
(average across year not concerning problem of availability ).

On a side note If Kerry society really want to lessen or stop unsustainable energy use , pollution etc.. You know what really are they complaining about. I know a perfect WT System building model would be to fully include the community esp. with monetary shares, but its not a perfect world..far from it.

unkel

lalababa wrote: »

Has anybody got stats./good guess for the output of the 317 or potential output of the 317+38 turbines versus the total consumption of electricity in kerry?

I can't see how those stats are relevant. Kerry turbines for Kerry people?

Wind turbines in Ireland provide up to 75% of total electricity in Ireland at night and even during the day, I regularly see figures of over 60%

The turbines in Kerry play an important part in this, like any other turbines in the country

uck51js9zml2yt

There are turbines at the top of my road.Probably 300 of the 317 .
When looking at houses in the area I didn't buy with a turbine the far side of some trees.
They don't bother me being about 3km from them. They look nice on the skyline.

An_Toirpin

Wind is providing around 22 % of electricity consumed but it varies a lot. It can be a lot more or a lot less at any one time.

unkel

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Wind is providing around 22 % of electricity consumed but it varies a lot. It can be a lot more or a lot less at any one time.

Wind has provided 44% of electricity consumed over the past 30 days. Have a look at the figures by playing with the settings here:

Linky

An_Toirpin

unkel wrote: »

Wind has provided 44% of electricity consumed over the past 30 days. Have a look at the figures by playing with the settings here:

Linky

Sure but it has been very windy. It was 22% over the course of last year.

unkel

Last year as in 2017? Where do you get those figures?

KCross

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Sure but it has been very windy. It was 22% over the course of last year.

That's about right.... Jul '17 - Jul '18 averaged about 27% over the 12 months.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108779271&postcount=194

27% is very good considering how few we have.
We could easily do 270% if we tried. We've got the best wind in Europe outside of Scotland.

An_Toirpin

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

27% is very good considering how few we have.
We could easily do 270% if we tried. We've got the best wind in Europe outside of Scotland.

I think you are out of date. We have at least 264 wind farms already in the Republic. We certainly could export some wind energy but we will never be totally self sufficient in wind energy.

My information is based on the density of deployment I see everyday in Éire compared to the mainland.
Self-sufficiency is doable with combined sources and practical grid storage solutions.



Bare in mind we have probably over twice the wind resource Germany has.

An_Toirpin

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

My information is based on the density of deployment I see everyday in Éire compared to the mainland.
Self-sufficiency is doable with combined sources and practical grid storage solutions.



Bare in mind we have probably over twice the wind resource Germany has.

Main land what? Latin America? We have good potential for wind but it is difficult to be self sufficient anywhere in the world with wind. Ireland and Germany have very similar MW per capita.

gctest50

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Main land what.

THE Main land

Franz Von Peppercorn

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I think you are out of date. We have at least 264 wind farms already in the Republic. We certainly could export some wind energy but we will never be totally self sufficient in wind energy.

?

Sury we can build ten times that number, particularly offshore.

listermint

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Main land what? Latin America? We have good potential for wind but it is difficult to be self sufficient anywhere in the world with wind. Ireland and Germany have very similar MW per capita.

With battery technology now catching up with generation tech. We have to start copping on and not wasting the wind resources.

An_Toirpin

gctest50 wrote: »

THE Main land

Mainland Ireland?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

?

Sury we can build ten times that number, particularly offshore.

Extremely expensive and probably still not self suficient. If we will need that many turbines, gas or nuclear would be greener.

listermint wrote: »

With battery technology now catching up with generation tech. We have to start copping on and not wasting the wind resources.

I agree but it won't be enough, especially with the massive increase in electricity demands that are coming down the line.

nogoodnamesleft

listermint wrote: »

With battery technology now catching up with generation tech. We have to start copping on and not wasting the wind resources.

Battery storage is already used in the commercial UK electricity market but not with wind turbines, there is limited projects attached to solar farms but their capacity factor is far less than wind (<8% so 92% they are doing nothing) .There are some wind turbines in the UK but planning permission is more difficult to attain due to more population density and the wind turbines need a min wind speed for it to be profitable to generate (overcome electrical losses, wear and of course the energy traders also need to get a satisfactory price for the turbine to operate).

At present the batteries are used to charge at night time (cheaper kWh) and discharge at peak demand. The issue with renewable is that it is intermittent and alternative generation sources are required for contingency (fast operating reserve employing fossil generation such as gas turbine and diesel generation sets). Its not all about just getting the asset on the network either, the technology is somewhat new on a large commercial scale dealing with distribution voltages The IEEE released a white paper last year in order to determine a standard for it. There is also some questions regards the longevity of some of the battery technology with their charge and discharge cycles and how that affects their asset life.

The roll out of wind and solar projects has been accelerated as of late due to the Irish capacity auctions as the Irish state is behind their target required for 2020.

The mainland is Europe/Russia/India & Asia.
Formerly known as Pangea.

Chemical batteries can't cut it for grid level storage, looking past the hype we need to develop flow batteries and mechanical storage.

MW per person isn't significant. We have an abundant clean power resource that's underdeveloped with phenomenal off-shore potential.

We could be serious contenders in the power export business if we braoden our horizons.

An_Toirpin

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

The mainland is Europe/Russia/India & Asia.
Formerly known as Pangea.

Chemical batteries can't cut it for grid level storage, looking past the hype we need to develop flow batteries and mechanical storage.

MW per person isn't significant. We have an abundant clean power resource that's underdeveloped with phenomenal off-shore potential.

We could be serious contenders in the power export business if we braoden our horizons.

Nothing stopping private busineses doing it. We'd want to cease subsidizing wind before building for export.

nogoodnamesleft

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Nothing stopping private busineses doing it. We'd want to cease subsidizing wind before building for export.

Yes, there is....cost and feasibility! The issue is that the existing electrical network on land supplying existing customers, businesses, hospitals, care homes etc would require significant reinforcement i.e. restrung lines, overlaid cables, new transmission towers, higher rated switch gear etc etc. This would also be non contestable works undertaken by the ESB, Eirgrid (or their contractors).

HVDC technology isn't cheap neither is laying subsea cables for bulk power transmission. It would be unrealistic to assume that a private company would be able to finance the capital for a project of that type of scale as the ROI would be a number of years and would effectively be too risky for a private venture. If you wish for an example of this it may be worth looking at the Severn Barrage project in the UK it was touted as being able to supply 7% of UK demand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage

There is also the issue of contingency in the event of a subsea cable faulting it will be weeks before this could be rectified and contingency would have to be also accounted for otherwise those private companies responsible for the wind turbines will still get paid (i.e. by the consumer) for generation they were unable to export, this is similar to the issue with Scottish wind farms which has also been an issue of late:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-wind-farm-paid-96m-to-switch-off-1-4846602

bob mcbob

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Yes, there is....cost and feasibility! The issue is that the existing electrical network on land supplying existing customers, businesses, hospitals, care homes etc would require significant reinforcement i.e. restrung lines, overlaid cables, new transmission towers, higher rated switch gear etc etc. This would also be non contestable works undertaken by the ESB, Eirgrid (or their contractors).

All the windfarms in the UK are built and operated by private companies (and not the electricity companies). The way it works is that they bid a price (per KWH) for all the electricity they produce. If their bid is accepted they then build and operate the wind farm and feed their electricity into the grid.

Below is table showing the costs for different electricity types. This is from 2015 and since then offshore wind costs have fallen dramatically.


Estimated UK LCOE for projects starting in 2015, £/MWh
Power generating technology Low Central High
Nuclear PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)(a) 82 93 121
Solar Large-scale PV (Photovoltaic) 71 80 94
Wind Onshore 47 62 76
Offshore 90 102 115
Biomass 85 87 88
Natural Gas Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 65 66 68
CCGT with CCS (Carbon capture and storage) 102 110 123
Open-Cycle Gas Turbine 157 162 170
Coal Advanced Supercritical Coal with Oxy-comb. CCS 124 134 153
IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) & CCS 137 148 171

Del2005

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Yes, there is....cost and feasibility! The issue is that the existing electrical network on land supplying existing customers, businesses, hospitals, care homes etc would require significant reinforcement i.e. restrung lines, overlaid cables, new transmission towers, higher rated switch gear etc etc. This would also be non contestable works undertaken by the ESB, Eirgrid (or their contractors).

HVDC technology isn't cheap neither is laying subsea cables for bulk power transmission. It would be unrealistic to assume that a private company would be able to finance the capital for a project of that type of scale as the ROI would be a number of years and would effectively be too risky for a private venture. If you wish for an example of this it may be worth looking at the Severn Barrage project in the UK it was touted as being able to supply 7% of UK demand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage

There is also the issue of contingency in the event of a subsea cable faulting it will be weeks before this could be rectified and contingency would have to be also accounted for otherwise those private companies responsible for the wind turbines will still get paid (i.e. by the consumer) for generation they were unable to export, this is similar to the issue with Scottish wind farms which has also been an issue of late:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-wind-farm-paid-96m-to-switch-off-1-4846602

Private companies spend billions everyday on risky projects, drilling for oil and gas, and spend the same again on expensive processing plants and pipelines. So why can't they spend some of that on the easy resources and even easier transportation, electrical cables. There must be something else wrong if private money is willing to sink billions in difficult to find, transport and process energy supplies but won't spend a penny on the easy to find and transport options.

nogoodnamesleft

bob mcbob wrote: »

All the windfarms in the UK are built and operated by private companies (and not the electricity companies). The way it works is that they bid a price (per KWH) for all the electricity they produce. If their bid is accepted they then build and operate the wind farm and feed their electricity into the grid.

Below is table showing the costs for different electricity types. This is from 2015 and since then offshore wind costs have fallen dramatically.


Estimated UK LCOE for projects starting in 2015, £/MWh
Power generating technology Low Central High
Nuclear PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)(a) 82 93 121
Solar Large-scale PV (Photovoltaic) 71 80 94
Wind Onshore 47 62 76
Offshore 90 102 115
Biomass 85 87 88
Natural Gas Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 65 66 68
CCGT with CCS (Carbon capture and storage) 102 110 123
Open-Cycle Gas Turbine 157 162 170
Coal Advanced Supercritical Coal with Oxy-comb. CCS 124 134 153
IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) & CCS 137 148 171

There is a massive difference between generating energy and distributing it to a local loads/demand Vs generating and transmission a substantial geographical distance away from the source. The example you cited is the former, the example i cited is the latter (as I was commenting with reference of generation of wind derived energy for export using the Scottish wind farms and the remote demand centred in London as an example).

You are very much mistaken if you think thats how wind farms are constructed in the UK. The developer first has to determine (once an adequate wind speed site has been identified) where there is available capacity in the network to take the proposed generation capacity as well as securing land rights. There can always be capacity however this will come at a price as it would usually require the network operator to increase the rating of their overhead lines, overlay cables and provide the connection to their development (this alone can sink any development proposal as it will literally blow the project budget out of the water as well as scheduling as it will take months if not years for those works to be progressed due to lead times on equipment, network outage planning or if the cable routes cross any roads or rail. Once the renewable project is finally built (obviously that will be time dependant upon the connection) it will be subject a Feed In Tariff (which is also time dependant depending on when the project is available for export).


Those figures you quoted are substantially dated as the Solar PV was decimated as the feed in tariff was substantially decreased in 2016 by the Uk energy regulator.

nogoodnamesleft

Del2005 wrote: »

Private companies spend billions everyday on risky projects, drilling for oil and gas, and spend the same again on expensive processing plants and pipelines. So why can't they spend some of that on the easy resources and even easier transportation, electrical cables. There must be something else wrong if private money is willing to sink billions in difficult to find, transport and process energy supplies but won't spend a penny on the easy to find and transport options.

Perhaps you have answered you own question. Private companies have their shareholders/investors to answer to at the end of the day. Perhaps its easier to get a decent return/lower risk to get low hanging fruit with other developments rather than embarking on interconnections between different states.

tom1ie

unkel wrote: »

I can't see how those stats are relevant. Kerry turbines for Kerry people?

Wind turbines in Ireland provide up to 75% of total electricity in Ireland at night and even during the day, I regularly see figures of over 60%

The turbines in Kerry play an important part in this, like any other turbines in the country

They provide approx 40% on average.

Del2005

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Perhaps you have answered you own question. Private companies have their shareholders/investors to answer to at the end of the day. Perhaps its easier to get a decent return/lower risk to get low hanging fruit with other developments rather than embarking on interconnections between different states.

You think a multi million Euro investment in a well which might be dry is low hanging fruit compared to the easily captured wind or sun? There has to be a reason why they are willing to gamble huge sums of money on one technology while ignoring a technology where there is little risk, investors don't like dry wells.

I can't see how an electrical cable under the sea can be anymore complex or expensive than an oil or gas pipeline, it should be easier as there is no risk of pollution.

nogoodnamesleft

Del2005 wrote: »

You think a multi million Euro investment in a well which might be dry is low hanging fruit compared to the easily captured wind or sun? There has to be a reason why they are willing to gamble huge sums of money on one technology while ignoring a technology where there is little risk, investors don't like dry wells.

I can't see how an electrical cable under the sea can be anymore complex or expensive than an oil or gas pipeline, it should be easier as there is no risk of pollution.

Multi-million....if you think thats what it would cost to lay and commission a HVDC project you may want to reposition the decimal point. The report below gives an idea of the costs associated with HVDC...projects costing around 1-2 Billion depending on the length of cable lay and HVDC technology. Hence my comment regards capital.

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC97720/ld-na-27527-en-n.pdf

Surprisingly there is environmental concerns associated with HVDC (dissipated heat and electromagnetic fields and how it impacts upon marine life)

antoinolachtnai

Electrical power distribution is a lot more complex and costly than oil or gas distribution for the simple reason that there are no ‘buffers’. You can’t store electricity for later use, by and large, as you can oil or gas.

The up-front capital investment to build solar or wind collectors is massive. It is much greater than the cost of opening oil or gas to produce a corresponding amount of energy, which is mostly paid for over the productive life of the asset and in proportion to its profitability (through royalties and levies to landowners or governments).

Financially, a wind farm works almost the opposite way to an oil or gas field. The government or large electricity customer has to guarantee the payment for the renewable power at a viable price over the life of the asset. The power generated has to be paid for whether it is used or not.

bilbot79

If we had a massive wind farm off the coast of Clare it could slow down the wind before it makes landfall. Maybe there'd be less damage to coastal towns in winter

Del2005

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Multi-million....if you think thats what it would cost to lay and commission a HVDC project you may want to reposition the decimal point. The report below gives an idea of the costs associated with HVDC...projects costing around 1-2 Billion depending on the length of cable lay and HVDC technology. Hence my comment regards capital.

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC97720/ld-na-27527-en-n.pdf

Surprisingly there is environmental concerns associated with HVDC (dissipated heat and electromagnetic fields and how it impacts upon marine life)

I was saying millions for the well not the pipelines. But there can't be much difference between a pipe for liquid and a pipe for electricity when laying it in the sea, both have environmental issues

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Electrical power distribution is a lot more complex and costly than oil or gas distribution for the simple reason that there are no ‘buffers’. You can’t store electricity for later use, by and large, as you can oil or gas.

The up-front capital investment to build solar or wind collectors is massive. It is much greater than the cost of opening oil or gas to produce a corresponding amount of energy, which is mostly paid for over the productive life of the asset and in proportion to its profitability (through royalties and levies to landowners or governments).

Financially, a wind farm works almost the opposite way to an oil or gas field. The government or large electricity customer has to guarantee the payment for the renewable power at a viable price over the life of the asset. The power generated has to be paid for whether it is used or not.

So an easy to capture and produce energy source needs subsidies to be viable while an expensive and risky energy source doesn't?? Why do wind/solar farms need to be paid for in advance while old tech is paid for with consumption? It'd have to be cheaper to build a wind farm off the coast of any country than drill a well in the Arctic and ship the product across the world. Yet companies spend billions on the hard to get energy sources while ignoring the easy energy, why?

liam7831

Del2005 wrote:

So an easy to capture and produce energy source needs subsidies to be viable while an expensive and risky energy source doesn't?? Why do wind/solar farms need to be paid for in advance while old tech is paid for with consumption? It'd have to be cheaper to build a wind farm off the coast of any country than drill a well in the Arctic and ship the product across the world. Yet companies spend billions on the hard to get energy sources while ignoring the easy energy, why?

bilbot79 wrote:

If we had a massive wind farm off the coast of Clare it could slow down the wind before it makes landfall. Maybe there'd be less damage to coastal towns in winter

Might also help prevent coastal erosion and climate change

antoinolachtnai

It isn't paid for in advance. It is paid for as the power is generated.

Power stations of any sort are almost always built on the basis of up-front government-regulated commitments in the form of capacity contracts. That's just the way the industry operates.

If you drill out oil, then you can ship it to many alternative purchasers worldwide. It is a global market. If you build a wind farm, there is only a very small group of prospective purchasers. It is a local market.

It might well be cheaper to build a wind farm off the coast of any country than drill a well in the Arctic, perhaps, but why would you drill a well in the arctic when there is perfectly good oil to be bought in America, the North Sea and the Arabian Gulf for less than 65 bucks a barrel?

Wind might seem like a straightforward return but in practice, it is a very big investment and a lot of the energy you generate is very low value. If wind farms had been built based on the assumption that the price of oil was going to continue to increase over this decade, they'd all be bankrupt now and the investment would be all lost. It would be crazy to invest on this basis.

On the other hand, electricity generated from fossil fuels is very controllable and requires smaller up-front costs, and the price of oil is pretty low. If the price of oil were high, it would be a whole other story.

unkel

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If wind farms had been built based on the assumption that the price of oil was going to continue to increase over this decade, they'd all be bankrupt now and the investment would be all lost. It would be crazy to invest on this basis.

The funny thing is that that is exactly what happened to a lot of the fracking industry in the US. Lots of investments, oil price goes down. Lots of bankruptcies...

Link

unkel

My EV has a real life range of 211km (ADAC) and a battery capacity of 28kWh...

...so 6kWh gives it 45km, or 28 miles

Indeed an ICE car would not be able to move an inch by the time a gallon of fuel is made for it from the same 6kWh

And that same 45km range costs me about 45c. One cent per km in fuel

and of that gallon (not including extraction, transportation and distribution) 20% went on the road...~60% to coolant & exhaust and the rest is noise and friction.


yer motor puts 60% on the road

bob mcbob

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

There is a massive difference between generating energy and distributing it to a local loads/demand Vs generating and transmission a substantial geographical distance away from the source. The example you cited is the former, the example i cited is the latter (as I was commenting with reference of generation of wind derived energy for export using the Scottish wind farms and the remote demand centred in London as an example).

You are very much mistaken if you think thats how wind farms are constructed in the UK. The developer first has to determine (once an adequate wind speed site has been identified) where there is available capacity in the network to take the proposed generation capacity as well as securing land rights. There can always be capacity however this will come at a price as it would usually require the network operator to increase the rating of their overhead lines, overlay cables and provide the connection to their development (this alone can sink any development proposal as it will literally blow the project budget out of the water as well as scheduling as it will take months if not years for those works to be progressed due to lead times on equipment, network outage planning or if the cable routes cross any roads or rail. Once the renewable project is finally built (obviously that will be time dependant upon the connection) it will be subject a Feed In Tariff (which is also time dependant depending on when the project is available for export).


Those figures you quoted are substantially dated as the Solar PV was decimated as the feed in tariff was substantially decreased in 2016 by the Uk energy regulator.

The costs quoted were from 2015 so yes there is a big difference now.

For example, the Moray East offshore windfarm will be generating power at a cost of £57.50 per MWh. At a minimum 20Km from the coast at Wick I think we can all agree that this is pretty remote. Details in link

http://www.morayoffshore.com/moray-east/the-project/

Regarding connection to the grid, this is being done by Siemens who state that "the grid connection is one way to drive down costs"

nogoodnamesleft

bob mcbob wrote: »

The costs quoted were from 2015 so yes there is a big difference now.
(
For example, the Moray East offshore windfarm will be generating power at a cost of £57.50 per MWh. At a minimum 20Km from the coast at Wick I think we can all agree that this is pretty remote. Details in link

http://www.morayoffshore.com/moray-east/the-project/

Regarding connection to the grid, this is being done by Siemens who state that "the grid connection is one way to drive down costs"

20km is not remote by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to AC distribution voltages never mind transmission voltages (A radial overhead line at distribution voltage can be > 20km) at transmission you will be talking about hundreds of Kms and via DC as opposed to AC transmission.

vladmydad

As long as oil remains cheep and plentiful, alternatives will struggle.

You mean as long as the general public are happy to make unconscionable purchases, cleaner ones will struggle?

unkel

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

You mean as long as the general public are happy to make unconscionable purchases, cleaner ones will struggle?

People will always choose the cheapest option. It's not realistic to expect them to do the right thing. So the government will just need to stick an extra 30c/l excise on petrol and 70c/l on diesel. The people will then go for cleaner purchases straight away

antoinolachtnai

That’s what Leo’s friend M Macron tried to do in France. Look how well that worked out for him!

unkel

unkel wrote: »

People will always choose the cheapest option. It's not realistic to expect them to do the right thing. So the government will just need to stick an extra 30c/l excise on petrol and 70c/l on diesel. The people will then go for cleaner purchases straight away

It would be better to simply have a high duty on new vehicles that pollute, new car buyers determine what vehicles are available on the secondhand market for the following 15 years.

unkel

unkel wrote: »

People will always choose the cheapest option.

I don't. Buy cheap, buy twice.
Every time I buy a substandard product like a service station breakfast roll, I'm voting that that's acceptable consumer goods.

Accept responsibility for your own legacy.
Why the eff do I need to empower a government, to disempower me, to deliver me what I want in the first place...:rolleyes:

I don't buy non-user-serviceable goods, proprietary interfaces, non-fair trade coffee, primary cells, battery chicken eggs, cheap tyres, Apple anything, etc..

Ain't denying I like diesel but at least I try to offset it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It would be better to simply have a high duty on new vehicles that pollute

Duty the polluter to incentivise the cleaner...simples

Sir Liamalot

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Duty the polluter to incentivise the cleaner...simples

The quickest way to change the vehicle fleet to EV is to raise the duty on ICE vehicles. Most vehicles end up on the second-hand market after only a couple of years and second-hand buyers are limited to what's available, usually ICE vehicles.

Yes but give that duty as a concession on a cleaner vehicle.

SlowBlowin

As I understand it the key moment will be reached shortly when leasing companies make the switch. As the secondhand value of the car is the most important thing in a lease agreement the finance companies are paranoid about getting their timing wrong and ending up with fleets of ICE that they cant get a good price for. Already the cost of ICE leasing is rocketing (to cover the uncertainty of the timing) and EV leasing costs are falling (safe bet). The moment companies see that ICE cars are more expensive to finance then everyone will be boasting about their new green fleet.

SB

antoinolachtnai

Well you end up with a load of other troubles. If people on the single phase (rural) network started buying EVs with gusto, the electricity network would end up in real trouble and real fast. You need a system to schedule charging so it doesn’t overload transformers all over the place. It’s all possible but it is not simple.

Looks like high time to futureproof the network instead of making excuses.
I'm pretty sure that's what we're all paying a PSO levy allegedly for...

antoinolachtnai

Nope, the PSO levy only relates to energy has nothing to do with funding the distribution network. The charge that pays for the distribution network is the DUoS charge. See https://www.esbnetworks.ie/docs/default-source/publications/esb-networks-dac-statement-of-charges . It’s 3.9 c /kWh and 65-95 euros a year ex VAT.

The tariff does not reflect the fact that the network is more heavily loaded at certain times.