Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Energy infrastructure

13031333536172

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 226 ✭✭specialbyte


    Really interesting report by Wind Energy Ireland and Baringa (https://windenergyireland.com/latest-news/5647-new-report-reveals-endgame-for-fossil-fuels-in-irish-power-system) released yesterday talking about a path to zero carbon eletricity system in Ireland.

    The current government target is to go from our current ~40% renewables to 70% renewables by the end of the decade ('70 by 30' target). The Wind Energy Ireland report says we can be more ambitious by aggressively rolling out already existing technology. Reaching 80-85% renewables with less than 2Mt of emissions from electricity generation in Ireland.

    Here's some of the key findings in their report
    • Reducing power sector CO2 emissions in Ireland from around 9 million tonnes today to a target of less than 2 million tonnes of CO2 per year is very achievable by 2030, using the approach currently underway to achieve the ‘70 by 30’ target, and implementing more of existing and proven technologies.
    • The current Programme for Government renewable capacity targets of 8.2 GW of onshore wind and 5 GW of offshore wind by 2030 should be maintained, with an additional target of 5 GW of solar PV.
    • This target can be achieved at a lower cost to the end consumer in Ireland, compared to delivery of the less ambitious ‘70 by 30’ target.
    • A zero-carbon power system is possible by 2030 and represents an achievable target in the 2030s.

    Interestingly their model suggests based on the two scenarios how that would affect the carbon intensity of our electricity grid:
    In 2019, the emission intensity of the ROI power sector totalled 324 grams of CO2 per kWh generated including emissions from re-dispatch of plant to meet DS3 limits. Conversely, the ‘70 by 30 (3.3 MtCO2)’ and ‘Less than 2 MtCO2’ scenarios achieved intensities of 84 and 38 gCO2/kWh in 2030 respectively in ROI.

    74.1% drop in carbon intensity in the '70 by 30' target
    88.3% drop in carbon intensity in the 'Less than 2 MtCO2' scenario

    There's lots of assumptions in the report and a large number of policy changes, legislative changes and infrastructure projects would need to complete over the next 9-10 years for Ireland to hit with the '70 by 30' target or the 'Less than 2 MtCO2' scenario. So it's by no means guaranteed.

    However, it is interesting to see a detailed report on what that pathway towards almost eliminating fossil fuels from the grid in Ireland will look like. Anyone have any thoughts on their analysis?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,487 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    In a year, a solar panel in Ireland gets sunshine for 14.8% of the hours in a year.

    That is less than half that for the sunnier parts of the US which would yield 34.2%.

    So to get 5 GWH of electricity here will cost 2.3 times what it costs in the US, where the cost is a minimum of $1 M per Mwh, so 5 GWH will cost €9.74 B.

    The rest of that report might be pretty suspect, based on it's advocacy for solar.

    Anything is achievable and can be advocated with an infinite supply of money as an assumption.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Given the faults in Whitegate and Huntstown there's something like 840MW of gas powered capacity offline, in case of Whitegate worse case scenario is early 2022 before it comes back online.

    I've said it before, people often talk about reliability of wind/solar, but fossil fuel plants suffer long outages all the time. Moneypoint was out for almost a year and now major faults at Whitegate and Hunstown.

    And internationally you'd see major outages long term outages at Nuclear plants.

    All power generation has their issues and require backups.
    The current government target is to go from our current ~40% renewables to 70% renewables by the end of the decade ('70 by 30' target). The Wind Energy Ireland report says we can be more ambitious by aggressively rolling out already existing technology. Reaching 80-85% renewables with less than 2Mt of emissions from electricity generation in Ireland.

    I haven't looked at the report yet, but it sounds like it backs up something I've been saying for a long time. That 70% renewables is looking very doable with existing technology and I even felt we could push a good bit beyond that.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    In a year, a solar panel in Ireland gets sunshine for 14.8% of the hours in a year.

    That is less than half that for the sunnier parts of the US which would yield 34.2%.

    Actually Ireland can get up to 19% Sunshine per year. But that figure is also misleading, as modern panels can still generate power (less obviously) even under cloud.

    And I'd ask when looking to the US, surely Germany would be a better example, only slightly more hours of sunshine then us and they are generating 10% of their electricity by Solar. It is very doable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ClosedAccountFuzzy


    That’s actually wrong with Whitegate and Huntstown?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    I think your units are wrong, cnocbui? Lazard's 2020 LCOE for thin-film PV is $29 to $38 per MWh. You must mean MW? I'd argue that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to look at the price of solar purely in terms of construction cost per MW of capacity since once built, it effectively costs nothing to run subsequently. You can build NG plant much cheaper per MW of capacity but because you have running costs and fuel costs, the actual electricity produced is more expensive.

    So if your $9B were correct - you are looking at paying for 30 years of electricity in advance.

    I've felt that onshore wind should be Ireland's focus given its current big price advantage and that we should effectively ignore solar. But I'm changing my mind on this.

    For one thing, utility scale PV is so cheap these days that even at half the efficiency it's almost competitive with combined-cycle natural gas - the cleanest and cheapest fossil fuel electricity source.

    And it's going to get cheaper - prices have been dropping by around 10% a year for a decade now. This will continue for a long time into the future - PVs are a form of solid state silicon based electronics - and 70 years since the invention of silicon based electronics, prices are continue to drop every year by fairly considerable amounts.

    On the other hand, I think wind turbine prices will plateau at some stage given that they are largely mechanical/electrical. I don't expect any improvement in prices for thermal based generation - you just don't see big breakthroughs in mechanical engineering these days.

    The other reason to add considerable solar generation to the system is that it compliments wind generation. This paper - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115303591 - looks at the correlation between wind speed and solar irradiance in Britain and finds that they are slightly anti-correlated. So having a mix of both solar and wind, gives you a big reduction in volatility compare to either on their own.

    And solar also has some other advantages in that it's practically invisible from the ground and is completely silent. It partners well with battery storage also as it produces DC output.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    gjim wrote: »
    And it's going to get cheaper - prices have been dropping by around 10% a year for a decade now. This will continue for a long time into the future - PVs are a form of solid state silicon based electronics - and 70 years since the invention of silicon based electronics, prices are continue to drop every year by fairly considerable amounts.
    There are lots of different solar technologies and lots of lab proven technologies waiting in the wings so the improvements will continue for a good while yet.

    And then there's mad stuff like this that could change everything overnight.

    To improve PV there is also stupidly simple stuff like not light proofing the back of panels to get an extra 10-20% in places like Ireland where you get more diffuse light because of clouds , or the realisation that panels had gotten so cheap that silver usage for connectors was 10% of the cost - they used cheaper connectors after that. Using flat connectors on the front of panels blocked light so now have vertical strips giving a fraction of a % more energy at almost no cost. Using panels that can take higher voltages means you can reduce the number of inverters and use less copper in the cables. Panels are now more efficient so you need less area , so you save on support brackets too. It all adds up.
    On the other hand, I think wind turbine prices will plateau at some stage given that they are largely mechanical/electrical. I don't expect any improvement in prices for thermal based generation - you just don't see big breakthroughs in mechanical engineering these days.
    Wind turbines are a fairly mature technology. But will continue to fall in price because of manufacturing efficiencies and better materials, especially if they'll standardise on a blade design for a huge production run. As volumes go up costs will continue to go down for a while. I remember seeing something about the lads in China and they went from weeks to installing a turbine to doing one a day so installation costs are going down.


    The limits to thermal generation are usually materials. Combined cycle gas turbines have gotten to 60% so it's a question of how to use the low grade waste heat to avoid the need to generate power.

    Old coal would be half that, using a fuel with twice the CO2 emissions. So replacing obsolete coal with gas saves 75% of the CO2. New coal is better , and carbon storage better still , but gas is still cleaner, and cheaper where it's available.

    Many types of nuclear plant have hard limits on temperature because of hard limits on things like the Critical Pressure of Water, Temperature dependent allotropes of plutonium, Maximum temperature of fuel rod materials and other components because you can't use stuff that adsorb neutrons or behaves badly if they do.

    Thorium, pebble bed, molten salt, small modular reactors, fast breeders etc. etc. have all been built multiple times including during the cold war where money and patriotism were plentiful. "But this time it'll be different." I'm not expecting any major new technology there and certainly nothing that won't be massively undercut by renewables during it's lifetime.

    Fusion is 20-30 years away. Just like it's always been. The global spend on ITER is about the same as one large nuclear power station which shows how much capital they soak up.


    Reasonably accurate weather forecasting is getting one day better per decade because of computing power. Which helps renewables and the energy market.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    gjim wrote: »
    And solar also has some other advantages in that it's practically invisible from the ground and is completely silent. It partners well with battery storage also as it produces DC output.
    Plants are green because they use Blue and Red light.

    Translucent panels that use UV-purple / green / infra-red would allow plants to grow underneath.

    Putting them inside greenhouses would mean structural and cleaning costs drop to near zero because that's already done.



    You can now get solar panels that look like roof tiles so they blend in on new builds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    bk wrote: »
    I've said it before, people often talk about reliability of wind/solar, but fossil fuel plants suffer long outages all the time. Moneypoint was out for almost a year and now major faults at Whitegate and Hunstown.
    Yes - when you think about it, effectively all generation capacity is intermittent to some degree.

    For example, the average US coal station is unavailable to deliver power for about 10% of the year due to forced unscheduled downtime and about 5% of the time for scheduled downtime (the equivalent numbers are a bit lower for nuclear and much lower for gas).

    So a grid with just 10GW of coal generation will not be able to meet a demand that peaks at 10GW. You would need significant extra idling capacity to avoid regular load-shedding. In fact in theory you can never state with 100% confidence that such a grid can always meet all demand at all times, no matter how much idling capacity it has, so statistical modelling is used to make such a scenario highly unlikely.

    Critics of LCOE comparisons often bring up the fact that wind or solar requires complimentary idling backup sources and the LCOE doesn't incorporate these externalities but never mention that thermal generation also requires the same. Funnily enough the stuff that helps grids cope with thermal plant intermittency also helps with renewables - hydro storage, gas backup plants, grid interconnectors, etc.

    Yes the nature of the intermittency is different with renewables - in some ways it's more extreme. But in other ways it's more easily dealt with - solar has a highly seasonal component (in the time-series sense), wind is generally more random but predictable (at the weeks scale). Unscheduled forced thermal plant shutdown on the other hand is completely unpredictable and so is more difficult to have contingency for. This is proven by the fact that the Irish grid is under pressure because of unpredictable thermal plant failures and not because of lulls in wind despite relying on wind for a significant amount of generation capacity.

    Nevertheless we've managed to build grids which can reliably meet peak demand while coping with thermal plant intermittency and it seems grid operators have simply improved their statistical tools to handle the forms of intermittency associated with wind and solar - given that the doomsday "guaranteed blackouts if we start depending on renewables unless we spend billions on batteries" scenario has been disproved by real world experience.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,410 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Anyone got any idea what happened to shut white gate down for the bones of a year ?
    Ironically I was just reading an old article on their super duper diagnostics software , that was going to reduce breakdowns and downtime..
    Oh well

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,859 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Anyone got any idea what happened to shut white gate down for the bones of a year ?
    Ironically I was just reading an old article on their super duper diagnostics software , that was going to reduce breakdowns and downtime..
    Oh well

    Same question about huntstown. That’s been down for a long time and it’s not the first time either.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,757 ✭✭✭Apogee


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Anyone got any idea what happened to shut white gate down for the bones of a year ?
    Ironically I was just reading an old article on their super duper diagnostics software , that was going to reduce breakdowns and downtime..
    Oh well
    Bord Gáis Energy’s gas-fired power plant in Whitegate, Co Cork, has been out of action since early December, when problems emerged with the facility’s turbine, which generates its electricity. The company confirmed that it was forced to close the plant in December. “The cause of the shutdown is under investigation and we are working to return the power station to service as soon as possible,” a statement said.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/bord-g%C3%A1is-power-plant-in-cork-forced-to-close-over-technical-issues-1.4477386


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    gjim wrote: »

    So a grid with just 10GW of coal generation will not be able to meet a demand that peaks at 10GW. You would need significant extra idling capacity to avoid regular load-shedding. In fact in theory you can never state with 100% confidence that such a grid can always meet all demand at all times, no matter how much idling capacity it has, so statistical modelling is used to make such a scenario highly unlikely.

    Critics of LCOE comparisons often bring up the fact that wind or solar requires complimentary idling backup sources and the LCOE doesn't incorporate these externalities but never mention that thermal generation also requires the same. Funnily enough the stuff that helps grids cope with thermal plant intermittency also helps with renewables - hydro storage, gas backup plants, grid interconnectors, etc.

    Yes the nature of the intermittency is different with renewables - in some ways it's more extreme. But in other ways it's more easily dealt with - solar has a highly seasonal component (in the time-series sense), wind is generally more random but predictable (at the weeks scale). Unscheduled forced thermal plant shutdown on the other hand is completely unpredictable and so is more difficult to have contingency for. This is proven by the fact that the Irish grid is under pressure because of unpredictable thermal plant failures and not because of lulls in wind despite relying on wind for a significant amount of generation capacity.

    Nevertheless we've managed to build grids which can reliably meet peak demand while coping with thermal plant intermittency and it seems grid operators have simply improved their statistical tools to handle the forms of intermittency associated with wind and solar - given that the doomsday "guaranteed blackouts if we start depending on renewables unless we spend billions on batteries" scenario has been disproved by real world experience.

    Every time you add a thermal plant to the system you make the system more reliable.

    It is December 20nd at 5.05pm in 2029. It is a cold, dark and still Thursday evening. You are the system operator. During the past year the last of the fossil fuel plants were demolished because of the dominance of renewable energy. Many press releases were sent. Your experts assured you that “grid operators have simply improved their statistical tools to handle the forms of intermittency associated with wind and solar”.

    Now there is no wind and the sun went down on Carnsore Point an hour ago. There won’t be much sun and there won’t be any wind for the next 5 days. The small amount of storage on the grid (you had been advised by an industry expert that there was no need to spend billions on batteries) will run out in 20 minutes.

    The fellow with the ‘statistical tools’ seems to have knocked off early for the day.

    What do you do now?


  • Posts: 0 Gwen Damaged Pita


    Every time you add a thermal plant to the system you make the system more reliable.

    It is December 20nd at 5.05pm in 2029. It is a cold, dark and still Thursday evening. You are the system operator. During the past year the last of the fossil fuel plants were demolished because of the dominance of renewable energy. Many press releases were sent. Your experts assured you that “grid operators have simply improved their statistical tools to handle the forms of intermittency associated with wind and solar”.

    Now there is no wind and the sun went down on Carnsore Point an hour ago. There won’t be much sun and there won’t be any wind for the next 5 days. The small amount of storage on the grid (you had been advised by an industry expert that there was no need to spend billions on batteries) will run out in 20 minutes.

    The fellow with the ‘statistical tools’ seems to have knocked off early for the day.

    What do you do now?

    Firstly I'll wonder what my salary is given that I appear to be the system operator, have experts working for me and industry experts are making presentations to me. I have the laziest bosses ever!

    Next I'll marvel at that audacity of mother nature. How dare she stop the wind over an area 3 times the size of Ireland itself that covers our offshore turbines plus everything on the island too. In December no less! During storm season! Must be a climate change thing caused by the old thermal plants. I slap the side of the display, oh wait never mind, the 3D projection just went a bit wonky. I must report that to some experts who work for me.

    Anyway, it's 5:05pm, I better head off, my shift finished at 5. The bike lanes on the M50 get a bit crowded by 5:30 so I want to get moving. I head out the door wishing it had actually been a still and calm evening..... Ireland in December, ugh so wet and windy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Of course by 2029 we'll have an additional 1200MW of undersea interconnection in place eg:
    • Celtic Interconnector (France): 700MW
    • Greenlink Interconnector (Wales): 500MW

    proposal-map.JPG.jpg

    Leaving that aside the current near term Battery pipeline for the island of Ireland (eg. to be built in next 5 years) is 2.5GW's

    https://www.energy-storage.news/blogs/ireland-battery-storage-pipeline-nears-2.5gw-new-solar-media-report-reveals


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Every time you add a thermal plant to the system you make the system more reliable.

    It is December 20nd at 5.05pm in 2029. It is a cold, dark and still Thursday evening. You are the system operator. During the past year the last of the fossil fuel plants were demolished because of the dominance of renewable energy. Many press releases were sent. Your experts assured you that “grid operators have simply improved their statistical tools to handle the forms of intermittency associated with wind and solar”.

    Now there is no wind and the sun went down on Carnsore Point an hour ago. There won’t be much sun and there won’t be any wind for the next 5 days. The small amount of storage on the grid (you had been advised by an industry expert that there was no need to spend billions on batteries) will run out in 20 minutes.

    The fellow with the ‘statistical tools’ seems to have knocked off early for the day.

    What do you do now?

    That’s exactly why the Stone Age ended, they ran out of stone…


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Every time you add a thermal plant to the system you make the system more reliable.

    It is December 20nd at 5.05pm in 2029. It is a cold, dark and still Thursday evening. You are the system operator. During the past year the last of the fossil fuel plants were demolished because of the dominance of renewable energy. Many press releases were sent. Your experts assured you that “grid operators have simply improved their statistical tools to handle the forms of intermittency associated with wind and solar”.

    Now there is no wind and the sun went down on Carnsore Point an hour ago. There won’t be much sun and there won’t be any wind for the next 5 days. The small amount of storage on the grid (you had been advised by an industry expert that there was no need to spend billions on batteries) will run out in 20 minutes.

    The fellow with the ‘statistical tools’ seems to have knocked off early for the day.

    What do you do now?
    Wake up. It's only a dream.



    Intermittent power sources like solar, wind, tide and nuclear are absolutely dependent on dispatachable power sources like demand shedding, batteries, pumped storage, hydro, and thermal. Anyone claiming otherwise may be due to ignorance or malice.

    For spinning reserve boilers can store some energy and gas can ramp up quickly.

    Capital intensive sources that run full time at near capacity like Geothermal and Nuclear can't.



    The long term tests are ongoing but it looks like you can add up to 20% hydrogen to the gas mains. Thermal (up to 60%) is not as efficient as fuel cells but it's already on the network and you are displacing carbon from heating and cooking as well as from electricity generation.

    For dedicated storage at a power plant this could be 100% hydrogen using dedicated storage and piping.

    Algae produced fuels aren't economic yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    World’s First Integrated Hydrogen Power-to-Power Demonstration Launched

    A consortium of European companies, research institutes, and universities have launched the world’s first demonstration of a fully integrated power-to-hydrogen-to-power project, at industrial scale and in a real-world power plant application.

    The four-year project to demonstrate HYFLEXPOWER, which has achieved a technology readiness level of 7, will convert a 12-MWe combined heat and power (CHP) plant at Engie Solutions’ Smurfit Kappa pulp-and-paper industrial site in Saillat-sur-Vienne, France, to demonstrate the entire power-to-hydrogen-to-power cycle.

    ig2020060013gp-1024x724.jpg

    https://www.powermag.com/worlds-first-integrated-hydrogen-power-to-power-demonstration-launched/

    High-Volume Hydrogen Gas Turbines Take Shape

    In preparation for a large-scale power sector shift toward decarbonization, several major power equipment manufacturers are developing gas turbines that can operate on a high-hydrogen-volume fuel.

    According to several experts, efforts by companies like Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems (MHPS), GE Power, Siemens Energy, and Ansaldo Energia to develop 100% hydrogen-fueled gas turbines have recently shifted into high gear, owing in part to new carbon reduction policies worldwide that have accelerated renewables capacity. The companies—which all manufacture large gas turbines but are jostling to sell them in a diminished market—are also actively competing for a concrete footing in future markets, including those that could thrive in a hydrogen economy.

    fig-1-mhps-mangum-gas-power-plant-vattenfall.jpg
    MHPS is currently piloting a project to convert one of three units at Vattenfall’s 1.3-GW Magnum combined cycle plant in the Netherlands (Figure 1) to renewable hydrogen by 2023. The project in Groningen, which entails modifying a 440-MW M701F gas turbine, will refine the combustion technology “to stay within the same NO x envelope as a natural gas power plant but do it burning 100% hydrogen,” without steam or water injection, Browning said. He said 100% will likely be achieved “in the next decade.”

    https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

    To put it into context the two gas plants that are currently offline (Huntstown and Whitegate) are each around the same capacity as the M701F gas turbines that will be converted to 100% hydrogen in the Netherlands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Intermittent power sources like solar, wind, tide

    I keep seeing this word "intermittent" being used in the same sentence solar, tidal, wind as if they could all being going gangbusters on minute and in a case of "whatever move I made" the next thing for no apparent reason switch off.

    Well the Sun is a huge ball of gas in space and never switches off, granted it will expand to consume the earth in about 4 billion years in which case I won't need to run my dishwasher. The only time it does "go off" from our perspective is when the earth rotates and thats fairly predictable.

    The tides again are as predictable as the rotation of the Earth just ask the US Marine Corp whom have tidal information for the next 10,000 years, course the moon could explode I guess.

    Wind is reasonably predictable within constraints over the course of a year just ask any meteorologist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Just because it is predictable doesn’t mean it isn’t intermittent.

    Just because you can predict something is going to happen doesn’t mean you don’t have to build contingency to deal with it when it does happen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Worley to design 50MW green hydrogen facility in Ireland

    Energy EPC company Worley has been appointed by energy company EI-H2 to help develop what’s been referred to as Ireland’s first commercial-scale green hydrogen production facility.

    Worley’s technical and commercial experts will be developing the concept design for the 50MW facility, which will be located in Aghada, close to the lower Cork harbour. It will see green hydrogen produced by electrolysis, powered by renewable energy. Once operational, the facility will supply over 20 tonnes of green hydrogen per day to a diverse commercial market and will remove 63,000 tonnes of carbon emissions annually.

    The project, which once complete, will be one of the largest green energy facilities of its kind in the world, according to Worley. The project will generate green, local jobs and will assist in meeting the targets of Ireland’s recent Climate Bill which mandates emissions reductions of 51% by 2030.

    “We firmly believe that Ireland is incredibly well-positioned to become a global leader in green energy. At EI-H2, we believe in partnerships that last. In that context, Worley is the natural choice to develop this key infrastructure,” said Tom Lynch, CEO of EI-H2.

    “As more renewable energy comes online, Ireland has a strategic role to play in decarbonising Europe. We continue to grow our strong footprint in this geography, supporting our customers to build a more sustainable future,” said Eoghan Quinn, Vice President, Power and New Energy, Worley.

    The project is expected to be operational before the end of 2023.

    https://www.powerengineeringint.com/hydrogen/worley-to-design-50mw-green-hydrogen-facility-in-ireland/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Shell starts green hydrogen production in Germany
    Refhyne consortium plans to expand capacity of the electrolyser to 100MW from 10MW

    hell has started operations to produce green hydrogen at what it said is the largest PEM hydrogen electrolyser in Europe.

    The plant at Shell’s Energy and Chemicals Park Rheinland is part of the Refhyne European consortium, and is backed by European Commission funding through the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking.

    Other members of the consortium backing the project are ITM Power, research organisation SINTEF, and consultants Sphera and Element Energy.

    The electrolyser was manufactured by ITM power in Sheffield, UK, and includes parts made in Italy, Sweden, Spain and Germany.

    Shell said plans are under way to expand capacity of the electrolyser from 10MW to 100MW at the Rheinland site, near Cologne.

    The Rheinland electrolyser will use renewable electricity to produce up to 1300 tonnes of green hydrogen a year.

    Shell downstream director Huibert Vigeveno said: “This project demonstrates a new kind of energy future and a model of lower-carbon energy production that can be replicated worldwide,” at today’s official opening ceremony.

    “Shell wants to become a leading supplier of green hydrogen for industrial and transport customers in Germany.

    “We will be involved in the whole process — from power generation, using offshore wind, to hydrogen production and distribution across sectors.

    “We want to be the partner of choice for our customers as we help them decarbonise.”

    Shell also intends to produce sustainable aviation fuel using renewable power and biomass in the future at the plant.

    A plant for liquefied renewable natural gas is also in development.

    North Rhine-Westphalia minister-president Armin Laschetsaid: “We are a hydrogen region. With the commissioning of the largest PEM electrolysis plant in Europe, we are further expanding our leading role in this field.

    “We are therefore laying the foundation for a modern and green industry, with highly skilled jobs.

    “Today, 30% of German demand for hydrogen already comes from North Rhine-Westphalia's industry. Estimates predict that demand will double by 2030.

    “This is why we need innovative solutions that will meet the demand for CO₂-neutral hydrogen. Projects such as Refhyne demonstrate how innovation can benefit both the environment and the economy.”

    https://renews.biz/70739/shell-starts-green-hydrogen-production-in-germany/




    Shell, Vattenfall, MHI plan German green hydrogen giant
    Initial stage of the project in Hamburg will be 100MW with the aim to develop the site into a clean energy hub

    Shell, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), Vattenfall and municipal company Warme Hamburg have signed a letter of intent to develop a green hydrogen project in Germany.

    The partners initially plan a 100MW electrolyser at the Hamburg-Moorburg power plant site and then further development into a so-called green energy hub is planned.

    They will explore the extent to which the existing infrastructure of the Moorburg location can be used for the production of energy from renewable sources.

    Subject to a final investment decision and according to the current state of planning, once the site has been cleared, the production of green hydrogen is anticipated in the course of 2025.

    The partners intend to apply for funding under the EU Important Projects of Common European Interest programme.

    This should take place in the first quarter of 2021 with the submission of a first outline of the project.

    ....

    hamburg_green_h2_hub_credit_mhi.jpeg

    https://renews.biz/70739/shell-starts-green-hydrogen-production-in-germany/


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Just because it is predictable doesn’t mean it isn’t intermittent.

    Just because you can predict something is going to happen doesn’t mean you don’t have to build contingency to deal with it when it does happen.

    Ya, what I’ve seen consistently across this and other forums is the word intermittent being pun out by anti “green” energy cohorts. A lot like cohorts being used to describe groups in an effort to do them done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,859 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    Every time you add a thermal plant to the system you make the system more reliable.

    It is December 20nd at 5.05pm in 2029. It is a cold, dark and still Thursday evening. You are the system operator. During the past year the last of the fossil fuel plants were demolished because of the dominance of renewable energy. Many press releases were sent. Your experts assured you that “grid operators have simply improved their statistical tools to handle the forms of intermittency associated with wind and solar”.

    Now there is no wind and the sun went down on Carnsore Point an hour ago. There won’t be much sun and there won’t be any wind for the next 5 days. The small amount of storage on the grid (you had been advised by an industry expert that there was no need to spend billions on batteries) will run out in 20 minutes.

    The fellow with the ‘statistical tools’ seems to have knocked off early for the day.

    What do you do now?

    start producing electricity from the vast reserved of hydrogen you have stored from the excess renewables in the past couple of weeks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    tom1ie wrote: »
    start producing electricity from the vast reserved of hydrogen you have stored from the excess renewables in the past couple of weeks.

    If your wanted to do that you would have to place orders for vast amounts of hydrogen storage by the year after next.

    You would also need to triple or quadruple the current wind base. You would need to build this in a five year period from 2024 to 2029.

    It is all possible but very ambitious especially because the hydrogen storage technology and floating offshore wind technology hasn’t really been industrialized yet.

    Very difficult to do for 2030, but certainly very feasible for 2040 or even 2035 depending how the technology matures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Ya, what I’ve seen consistently across this and other forums is the word intermittent being pun out by anti “green” energy cohorts. A lot like cohorts being used to describe groups in an effort to do them done.
    I found it impossible to understand the point being made here. Do them done?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    I found it impossible to understand the point being made here. Do them done?

    Down not done, typo


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    First off, excellent post Gwen Damaged Pita, hilarious :D
    It is December 20nd at 5.05pm in 2029. .....

    During the past year the last of the fossil fuel plants were demolished because of the dominance of renewable energy.

    What do you do now?

    No one is demolishing our fossil fuel plants for 2029. The peat burners are already gone and Moneypoint will be gone far before that date. But all the Natural Gas plants will still be there.

    If the wind isn't blowing on this date, then the NG plants will just be fired up and we will import over the interconnectors. Not all that different from today.

    Again I have to repeat the goal is to get to 70% renewables by 2030, not 100%. That means the NG plants will be still with us, supporting the grid when the wind isn't blowing.

    Now if you had said 2049, that would be different. Getting to 100% Net zero will be more challenging, but the technology for that is definitely coming, as other posters have pointed out to Hydrogen powered plants, etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,487 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    I found it impossible to understand the point being made here. Do them done?

    I think he's claiming they aren't intermittent so there is no problem. Solar panels generating useful output for 15% of a year is a perfectly usable, fully functional source of energy for society. If you can't see that, you are probably an anthropogenic global warming denier.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    bk wrote: »
    First off, excellent post Gwen Damaged Pita, hilarious :D



    No one is demolishing our fossil fuel plants for 2029. The peat burners are already gone and Moneypoint will be gone far before that date. But all the Natural Gas plants will still be there.

    If the wind isn't blowing on this date, then the NG plants will just be fired up and we will import over the interconnectors. Not all that different from today.

    Again I have to repeat the goal is to get to 70% renewables by 2030, not 100%. That means the NG plants will be still with us, supporting the grid when the wind isn't blowing.

    Now if you had said 2049, that would be different. Getting to 100% Net zero will be more challenging, but the technology for that is definitely coming, as other posters have pointed out to Hydrogen powered plants, etc.

    Well if you want to close Moneypoint, keep adding renewables and don’t have any other strategy you will have to build a lot more natural gas plants.

    If there is low wind during the summer it would be very optimistic to assume that there would be electricity available to import from other countries via interconnectors. All these other countries are trying to do the same thing we are doing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,487 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Well if you want to close Moneypoint, keep adding renewables and don’t have any other strategy you will have to build a lot more natural gas plants.

    If there is low wind during the summer it would be very optimistic to assume that there would be electricity available to import from other countries via interconnectors. All these other countries are trying to do the same thing we are doing.

    France is probably propping up Europes renewables energy push with it's 84% availability rate nuclear energy via interconnectors. Those Germans are thick.


Advertisement