Energy infrastructure

wassie

First, is PP required for an off-shore windfarm?

Yes

Second, why is legislation needed at all?

This explanation is a bit simplistic - legislation could be enacted to effectively overide the existing planning approvals process to ensure the development goes ahead in a timely manner in the national interest and not get delayed or derailed by 3rd party appeals.

Similar things have been done before - Strategic Development Zones were established in 2000 to enable the Government to designate certain parcels of land that are considered of strategic national importance to be fast tracked through the planning process. This process however was still subject to an appeals process.

Markcheese

Apparently there is new planning legislation for offshore coming through in the next few weeks - it can't be that great though or the Norwegians wouldn't be pulling out now -

And any new legislation is going to be open to new court challenges - and that could be years and years of delU

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121705#Comment_118121705

Anyone expecting large scale changes to the our planning system is probably wide of the mark; as Wassie suggested, the Strategic Development Zones is probably going to be the basis for any legislation, as it's been pretty successful, and has withstood several legal challenges already. The legislation may also provide a "fast track" route through ABP, but this would probably need a new, specific department to be set up, funded and staffed. It'd still be open to Judicial Review as well, that's just a fact of life, there's no way to get around it, and the only way to speed that up would be to increasing funding into the courts.

Bsharp

Yesterday it dawned on me that I'll be missing targets for the rest of my career. The volume of projects and permissions needed is endless. None of the responsible authorities are suitably resourced for the approvals process. To get them resourced means taking consultancy staff; so no one to deliver. This is already happening. Everyone's spread incredibly then.

323

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117958060#Comment_117958060

Thanks, may be wrong but can't see that one happening for reasons posted by others and more.

Your question re difference: No. basically still just two big conductors strapped together (with a fiber optic cable strapped to the bundle), numerous variables but basically just bigger cable.

No theoretical limit, or practical limits if you got deep enough pockets. Darwin/Sing, logistically very challenging, guessing close to half a million tons of cable, though there are a couple of companies working on superconductor technology for this application (at least one of them in Ireland), could reduce that quite a bit. Terrain to lay/route engineering, extremely challenging. Going down to depths in excess of 2000m to back up over one/probably two active volcanic mountain ranges, would like to see the insurance quote for that.

Banana Republic 1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118108159#Comment_118108159

Question is we’re do you bury the nuclear waste.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can woe leave any nuclear discussions to the Nuclear thread.

Thank you.

Paddico

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118133184#Comment_118133184

Wheres the Nuclear thread, I like the sound of that place

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118141374#Comment_118141374

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058216150/should-ireland-go-nuclear

Here ya go

Apogee

Request for public submissions on Arklow Phase 2

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118143088#Comment_118143088

How come we can push ahead with the Arklow project but equinor pull out of moneypoint 1 and 2?

Has construction been awarded to a specific company for the Arklow project?

Apogee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118143501#Comment_118143501

There was an article by Mick Clifford of the Examiner last week which covers some of the background to the Equinor decision:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40737345.html

dubhthach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118143501#Comment_118143501

Arklow is a lower risk given there is already turbines on site + a grid connection. Also the original design for Arklow was for 200 turbines which went through the planning system and got a foreshore lease. However in phase 1 they only installed 7 turbines (25MW combined). As a result it's probably the easiest offshore project to get progressed as most of the planning and regulatory hurdles were already passed nearly 20 years ago (Phase 1 went live in 2004!).

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144758#Comment_118144758

Please remind me again why Arklow has been stagnant for 20 years when wind generation has expanded massively globally ?

dubhthach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118145126#Comment_118145126

Airtricity at the time blamed lack of Gov support for cancellation of Phase II in 2007, of course we all remember what happened in the following 3-5 years.

Airtricity has long recognised the potential of offshore wind farm development and was the

first company in Ireland to develop offshore wind. In January 2002 the company obtained a

foreshore lease to develop a 520MW offshore wind farm on the Arklow Bank.  The first phase

(25.2MW) was completed in June 2004 in co-development with GE Energy and further

phases were put on hold due to the lack of Government support for offshore wind. The

company then concentrated on other markets and in May 2006 announced its plans for

development of Supergrid, a European Offshore project designed to marry the technology of

offshore wind with the latest transmission technology.

Archived copy on Wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110928154816/http://www.airtricity.com/assets/Uploads2/Press-Releases/Offshore-support-press-release1.pdf

jlang

Is it safe enough to assume the new windmills to be installed on the Arklow Bank will be of a newer generation than what went up or would have in the early 2000s? (Bigger, more efficient or otherwise taking advantage of the huge quantity that have been developed and deployed in the interim.)

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118146825#Comment_118146825

Wikipedia said only half as many needed now due to technical improvements which I'm guessing is basically longer blades.

Apogee

Interview with Mark Foley CEO of Eirgrid

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/is-our-power-supply-in-danger

323

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118146825#Comment_118146825

Spot on, a lot bigger turbines now. Briefly for a time, the couple of turbines at Arklow were the largest installed, the first marine rated turbines over 3 MW to go offshore. (GE prototypes at the time, thrown in for free to gather test data far as I remember). GE are currently building 12 to 14MW systems. Seen SSE are now talking of installing just 60 or so turbines for the same original name-plate power of the field.

Pete_Cavan

I see BNM are looking for "Owner’s Engineer" services for Timahoe North Solar Farm;

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/201455/1/0

Some more info on the project here (although this planning application doesn't seem to relate to the PV panels themselves);

https://www.timahoenorthgrid.ie/index.html

323

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118012305#Comment_118012305

Hi, sorry, for comment on oldish post. Deals long done and this concept is well under way.

Spain/Morocco interconnection has been in place for many years, 2 x HVDC links, believe they've signed the deal on a third to bring North Africa's solar into the mix just as as you suggested. Logical starting point as only a short hop across.

Thought the EuroAfrica Interconnector was still way in the future, told last week, apparently it's starting soon. Greece-Crete-Cyprus-Egypt.

More are in planning.

Sam Russell

If hydrogen has a real future for large vehicles then surely it makes more sense for North African countries to look to go solar -> hydrogen, and ship the gas rather than solar -> electricity and ship by long DC connectors.

Countries like Algeria have lots of land that sits in high levels of solar, and have the liquid gas experience. They have the possibilities of generating huge levels of hydrogen but maybe deserts have lots of sun but no water..

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118160103#Comment_118160103

As of 2019, the interconnectors between Spain and Morocco were mostly used by the latter to import energy from Spain.

Capt'n Midnight

Plans for 3,200Km undersea interconnector for Oz to Singapore

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/smart-grid-td/td-infrastructure/building-an-australia-singapore-power-link/

Getting past Indonesia would be a political issue I'd imagine, and it's a wee bit close to Krakatoa

The tech specs are interesting because they'd be similar to other projects. The 3% loss per 1,000km is what makes interconnectors possible, and high voltage electronics are getting better all the time.

Adopting the current technology, the interconnector will most likely be configured in a bipolar mode to offer 2 to 3GW power capacity, using two individual and identical HVDC underwater cables.

In the event of one cable failure, this arrangement allows using the intact cable into monopolar mode with earth return over the repair duration, enabling half of the electricity capacity to be transmitted.

Typical linear weights of these subsea HVDC cables range from 40 kg/m to 60 kg/m with diameters in the order of 150 mm and a capacity exceeding 1GW. It is estimated that the total cable weight of this interconnector (two off 3,200km cables) would reach 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes.

...

The electrical loss through HVDC cable is approximately 3% per 1,000km resulting in a 10% total electrical loss along this interconnector.

cnocbui

A simmilar proposed project for 15 GW of solar was recently rejected on environmental grounds, though that did involve wetlands. I wouldn't count your chooks until they are hatched. It will probably go ahead, but contray to the perception Australia is like the Sahara, it isn't. Someone needs to have a good look at the consequences of putting several square km of scrub in the shade, not to mention probably clearing a good deal of it.

"June 21, 2021: The Australian government has rejected plans for a $36 billion wind, solar and hydrogen project in a remote area of Western Australia, leaving what would have been one of the world's largest green energy projects in limbo for now.

In a decision dated June 15, published on the environment department's website, Environment Minister Sussan Ley ruled that the project, the Asian Renewable Energy Hub (AREH), "will have clearly unacceptable impacts" on internationally recognised wetlands and migratory bird species.

The AREH project, located in the state's Pilbara region, was designed to initially build 15 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity, eventually to be expanded to 26 GW and produce green hydrogen and ammonia for export."

Markcheese

Any and every mega project has mega impact - it'd be a massive land use change , doesn't mean a major solar project couldn't work and have limited impact ,but they probably need to scale it back a long way .

, I hadn't realized the pilbarra region was a major wetland ..

josip

It's mostly just red, red and loads more bloody red. Wouldn't do any harm to stick some of it under a bit of solar.

gjim

"that’s not true, nuclear can ramp up production quickly just a matter of controlling rods"

Eh no - traditional and nearly all current designs were not engineered for flexible operation. For older designs, when forced to, they prefer just dumping excess steam rather than adjusting the reactor temperature.

"Ramping up and down" for nuclear actually just means throwing away excess energy which makes nuclear energy even more expensive as the cost of output is dominated by capital.

It already costs between $130 and $200 per MWh based on an average capacity factor of nearly 90%. Operating a plant at half the capacity factor basically doubles the cost of the electricity output.

That's why nobody will go near building nuclear unless they're guaranteed a prices for full capacity output - like the Hinckley C deal in the UK.

So in theory a nuclear reactor output can be varied but in practice, the cost means that nobody is contemplating such a thing. There's talk of focus on building "flexibility" into future designs in the industry, but this is just engineering talk and ignores the painful finances of running a nuclear reactor at say average 60% capacity.

With a legacy fleet of reactors, where the capital cost is considered "sunk" (i.e. the nuclear plant is "free"), then you can afford to just bleed excess steam into the air but for new build, there's no chance.

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118160103#Comment_118160103

These are interconnectors to support load balancing/demand following. I view them as completely different to plan for bulk export solar power from Africa to Europe - which generally require in the order of 10GW transmission capacity.

There have been "bulk export solar power from Africa to Europe" projects on the go for at least a decade and there are still a few that haven't been abandoned (yet) like Xlinks and TuNur.

These projects have all been undermined by the incredible price falls (around 85%) for solar PV panels in the last decade. The cost of building long range transmission infrastructure has not fallen, so it's now easier and cheaper to just buy twice as many PV panels and set them up in Europe - even if they only provide 2/3rds the efficiency compared to operating them in Africa. It's cheaper than building long underwater HVDC lines and transmission infrastructure.

You can see this in the new generation figures - there's a large amount of solar being rolled out around northern Europe despite the less than ideal conditions for solar power. But the panels are now so cheap, it's still competitive to generate electricity in bulk this way.

And "keeping it local" has other attractions in terms of energy security and not having to deal with unstable or autocratic regimes. Europe is already exposed to implicit Russian blackmail because of natural gas dependence. You're making yourself very vulnerable if your electricity transmission lines carrying bulk supply run through a third country.

For now, I don't see any of these bulk energy export projects getting off the ground at all. The headwinds against them are too strong. They are unable to offer a compelling price advantage over locally produced solar power, they are hugely capital expensive, and they expose a country to massive energy security risk.

This might be of interest to some here