Energy infrastructure

magicbastarder

yeah, i was wondering the same - but as you mentioned, to get the head of pressure, the water has to be pumped up into those towers anyway - and that one near the airport (assuming you mean the one beside the M50) is probably the one giving us the head of pressure where i live.

hans aus dtschl

They can be reasonably low power because the head pressure comes from gravity though. Usage varies wildly through the day but pumping is 24 hours.

cruizer101

Water towers aren't exactly to increase pressure.
Rather they act as a kind of battery/capacitor to balance flow.
Say you have an area that uses 24,000m3 of water a day. So in theory you need to feed that with 1,000m3 per hour from your reservoir. However the reality is between 7 and 9 in the morning it might use 8,000 as everyone gets up and flushes toilet and has shower so the pressure will drop for people as you can only supply 1000 via the pipe from reservoir.
This is where the water tower comes in. You feed it with 1000 per hour and let it handle the demand spikes and ebbs. So it will fill-up overnight and go down during the day.

I have heard the one near the m50 and Dublin airport is empty for some reason, but that might just be a rumour.

In general I think the bulk of pressure is from height but there are booster pumps also used.

bk

bk wrote: »

Honestly I don't believe waste is as big a problem as it is made out to be by some. The amount of waste per person is a fraction of what is produced by coal/oil/gas and you can just bury it.

Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor.

Saying "you can just bury it" glosses over the many, MANY issues with even doing that. The US alone has 2,200 tons of it annually and has no idea what to do with it. Its literally spread all over the country being stored in casks until they can think of something to do with it.



They even spent 9 billion and 30 odd years setting up Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a storage solution and it has yet to receive a single barrel of waste and even if they opened it tomorrow it's capacity is insufficient for even the existing waste nevermind future waste.

Imagine trying to identify a storage location in Ireland for Nuclear waste, we can barely get an incinerator approved ffs

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine trying to identify a storage location in Ireland for Nuclear waste, we can barely get an incinerator approved ffs

it's not even down to the planning process; america has vast open empty spaces which you'd never find in ireland. look at the size of wyoming on that map; it has a population of about half a million.

riddlinrussell

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine trying to identify a storage location in Ireland for Nuclear waste, we can barely get an incinerator approved ffs

Funnily enough there was a bit of furore last year as Britain had identified under the Mournes as a possible good Nuclear Waste Storage site, so there is a slim possibility Ireland could end up with stored nuclear waste without a reactor anyway...

Apogee

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is a bit of an off the ball question - what provides the power to keep mains water pressurised? if it's electric pumps, they must use masses of power?

A mixture I'd imagine - gravity + pumps.

Kerryman wrote:

With Kerry County Council's water services department accounting for over 60 per cent of council expenditure on electricity, the project focussed on improving efficiencies and reducing electricity costs. Kerry County Council's Energy Officer, Willie Moynihan, explained that pumping of water constitutes the majority of the electrical demand, so Kerry County Council's Energy Office implemented a programme of works, including the installation of high-efficiency pumps and motors, which greatly reduce the demand on electricity. "In addition, a 250kW hydroelectric generator was installed at the Lough Guitane pump station in 2001," he explained."The electricity generated through this has been used in the Central Regional Water Supply Scheme Pumping Station, and since 2001, it has generated over €600,000 of electricity."

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/county-councils-innovation-gets-due-rewards-at-awards-27378446.html

A number of treatment plants are currently installing solar panels:
https://www.water.ie/projects-plans/renewable-energy-project/
https://www.water.ie/projects-plans/renewable-energy-project-1/

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor.

Saying "you can just bury it" glosses over the many, MANY issues with even doing that. The US alone has 2,200 tons of it annually and has no idea what to do with it. Its literally spread all over the country being stored in casks until they can think of something to do with it.

Exactly, it is stored in casks all over the US, because idiot anti-nuclear environmentalists are blocking the use of Yucca Mountain.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy, anti-nuclear folks block investment in new Nuclear technology and proper storage, so instead we end up using older, less safe, ageing designs and storing the waste in less then ideal conditions. :rolleyes: It couldn't be more stupid.

Fortunately most Nuclear powered European countries are a lot more sensible about this. France and the UK do Nuclear reprocessing of waste and Sweden, Finland, France, etc. all have or are building underground repositories.

Markcheese

I'm pretty sure that nuclear reprocessing didn't work out too well in the uk ,
Their thorp reprocessing plant shut down a couple of years back , they just store spent fuel rods there now .
I don't know what's happening with french reprocessing,

Markcheese

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B205

Not sure is the Mox fuel plant closed down or not , it was scheduled to close this year ..

gjim

bk wrote: »

Exactly, it is stored in casks all over the US, because idiot anti-nuclear environmentalists are blocking the use of Yucca Mountain.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy, anti-nuclear folks block investment in new Nuclear technology and proper storage, so instead we end up using older, less safe, ageing designs and storing the waste in less then ideal conditions. :rolleyes: It couldn't be more stupid.

Fortunately most Nuclear powered European countries are a lot more sensible about this. France and the UK do Nuclear reprocessing of waste and Sweden, Finland, France, etc. all have or are building underground repositories.

There's nothing simple about burying nuclear waste - ask the Germans. The geology has to be right - there can be no seismic activity - any paths to ground water have to be sealed and it's not a matter of burying it, walking away and forgetting about it - the disposal sites require constant expensive inspection/monitoring and 24h security. This all costs money and if something goes wrong, the cost of clean-up is an order of magnitude more expensive than if the stuff was stored above ground.

It's not environmentalists or hippies that are blocking more nuclear - it's simple economics.

Most of the 70s era industrial groups that focussed on nuclear have gone bust. There isn't a private company on the planet that could/would finance and build a reactor these days even if you could magic away all objections. The only reason for building new reactors these days is for "strategic" reasons (i.e. building/maintaining a nuclear arsenal) and it always requires massive government subsidy.

Producing electricity from fission has turned out to be a technological cul-de-sac. Most technologies get cheaper, easier, more efficient with adoption and time (even crude tech like burning gas for electricity never mind PV, wind, battery storage, etc.) but no such trend has happened with nuclear.

Economics has meant it's been in decline for decades (at it's peak it was responsible for 18% of global electricity production - it's now down to less than 8%). I think only a single new nuclear plant has opened in the US in the last 3 decades?

It's a dying industry and irrelevant for electricity production. We have far better options and tech today than they had in the 70s - just let it go.

Markcheese

https://youtu.be/aoy_WJ3mE50

This is the waste repository in finland ,
First operational in the world ..

Sam Russell

Markcheese wrote: »

https://youtu.be/aoy_WJ3mE50

This is the waste repository in finland ,
First operational in the world ..

I would have thought that Chernobyl would have put anyone off nuclear power for ever. The cost of partially sorting that out is eye wateringly expensive. The only point in nuclear power is to build nuclear bombs.

Banana Republic 1

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would have thought that Chernobyl would have put anyone off nuclear power for ever. The cost of partially sorting that out is eye wateringly expensive. The only point in nuclear power is to build nuclear bombs.

Nuclear plants have vastly improved since Chernobyl and in realty the effects on the globe were insignificant compared to the current CO2 issues. A lot of the technology advancement humans are in some way used for war, should we abandon all those. Another reality is that the energy consumed derived from fossil fuel by a average westerner in a year would amount to same amount of nuclear waste that would fit in a coke can.

Markcheese

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Nuclear plants have vastly improved since Chernobyl and in realty the effects on the globe were insignificant compared to the current CO2 issues. A lot of the technology advancement humans are in some way used for war, should we abandon all those. Another reality is that the energy consumed derived from fossil fuel by a average westerner in a year would amount to same amount of nuclear waste that would fit in a coke can.

Are you including mining and refining in that ?

Hang on , is that all nuclear waste or just the high level stuff ... ? Those coke cans, start to add up pretty quick ..

Markcheese

Public dislike of nuclear isn't what's gutted the nuclear industry ... It's money .. They just cost too much , and that's not including dealing with the spent fuel ,and decommissioning the site ..

Banana Republic 1

Markcheese wrote: »

Are you including mining and refining in that ?

Hang on , is that all nuclear waste or just the high level stuff ... ? Those coke cans, start to add up pretty quick ..

Mining destroys the earth

Yes all the waste per person per year. The same cannot be said for the vast amounts of fossil fuel waste we pump out. The CO2 in the atmosphere now will effect that planet for thousands of years.

Capt'n Midnight

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Nuclear plants have vastly improved since Chernobyl and in realty the effects on the globe were insignificant compared to the current CO2 issues. A lot of the technology advancement humans are in some way used for war, should we abandon all those. Another reality is that the energy consumed derived from fossil fuel by a average westerner in a year would amount to same amount of nuclear waste that would fit in a coke can.

How have they "vastly improved" ?

Compare the thermal efficiency improvements of nuclear plants to other steam turbine generators like those powered by coal or gas. Gas can hit 60% in combined cycle. Ultrasupercritical coal is at 47.5%. The latest nuclear plant is 37% at best. In theory it could be double this.

Has the fuel efficiency improved more than for coal or gas ?



Reprocessing, how's that going ?

Breeder reactors, how many are operating commercially ?

Small modular reactor, how many are operating commercially ?

Thorium reactors, how many are operating commercially ?

All were promised decades ago.



Over the average life of a plant the cost of renewables is in free fall. Even over the time it takes to build them. EDF have been building EPR reactors since 2005. Olkiluoto 3 should have come online in 2009 , might be fully operational by 2022. A wind farm can be carbon neutral in as little as six months.


Overall nuclear supplies less power globally than was saved by changing from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent and LED. Better insulation would probably save as much again. The "benefits" of nuclear can be obtained quicker, for less and provide more jobs.

Any fantasy about a massive expansion of nuclear power has to take into account the supply vs demand costs of uranium. If you quadruple nuclear you may hit Peak Uranium during the lifetime of the plants.

tom1ie

If we can store renewables like wind we don’t need nuclear.
All we have to do is solve the storage issue :-)

bk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How have they "vastly improved" ?

Compared to Chernobyl, it isn't so much as improved, it is more the case that we use completely different nuclear technology in the rest of the world, compared to what they used in Russia and Chernobyl.

Most power plants in the world are either PWR's or BWR's, while Chernobyl was a weird RBMK type reactor. Only the Soviet Union ever used this type of reactor. RBMK style reactors were rejected in the West due to their unstability during start up and shutdown.

Chernobyl didn't even have a fortified containment building, unlike PWRs/BWRs, it was basically an open reactor sitting in a big shed!

As terrible as Chernobyl is, it isn't comparable in any way to PWR/BWR style reactors.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you quadruple nuclear you may hit Peak Uranium during the lifetime of the plants.

Ugghhh... There is zero issues with running out of Uranium, we have hundreds of years of Uranium supply available. Very little Uranium mining is done at the moment, since we have so much excess left over from decommissioned Nuclear weapons. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US did a deal with Russia to buy up and help decommission their old Nuclear missiles and use the uranium in Nuclear power instead. This killed off most uranium mining for decades due to the glut of supply and very cheap pricing.

Look, I don't think we will do Nuclear power here in Ireland due to the economics of it, lack of experience and small size of out grid. But lets not spread misinformation about it.

tom1ie wrote: »

If we can store renewables like wind we don’t need nuclear.
All we have to do is solve the storage issue :-)

Yep, though we can definitely store power, the trick is making it cheap. The holy grail is getting renewables + storage to below the cost of gas.

Though storage isn't the only solution.

More interconnection is important, in particular on mainland Europe. Sure, maybe the wind stops blowing in one part of Europe, but the sun can be shining bright in another part.

Also smart grids and being able to ramp up and down power usage based on renewable availability will help greatly too. Only charge the EV's when the wind is blowing, etc.

Banana Republic 1

bk wrote: »

Compared to Chernobyl, it isn't so much as improved, it is more the case that we use completely different nuclear technology in the rest of the world, compared to what they used in Russia and Chernobyl.

Most power plants in the world are either PWR's or BWR's, while Chernobyl was a weird RBMK type reactor. Only the Soviet Union ever used this type of reactor. RBMK style reactors were rejected in the West due to their unstability during start up and shutdown.

Chernobyl didn't even have a fortified containment building, unlike PWRs/BWRs, it was basically an open reactor sitting in a big shed!

As terrible as Chernobyl is, it isn't comparable in any way to PWR/BWR style reactors.



Ugghhh... There is zero issues with running out of Uranium, we have hundreds of years of Uranium supply available. Very little Uranium mining is done at the moment, since we have so much excess left over from decommissioned Nuclear weapons. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US did a deal with Russia to buy up and help decommission their old Nuclear missiles and use the uranium in Nuclear power instead. This killed off most uranium mining for decades due to the glut of supply and very cheap pricing.

Look, I don't think we will do Nuclear power here in Ireland due to the economics of it, lack of experience and small size of out grid. But lets not spread misinformation about it.



Yep, though we can definitely store power, the trick is making it cheap. The holy grail is getting renewables + storage to below the cost of gas.

Though storage isn't the only solution.

More interconnection is important, in particular on mainland Europe. Sure, maybe the wind stops blowing in one part of Europe, but the sun can be shining bright in another part.

Also smart grids and being able to ramp up and down power usage based on renewable availability will help greatly too. Only charge the EV's when the wind is blowing, etc.

I agree with this. Ireland could go down the micro nuclear plant route, these are the types of things used in aircraft carriers and submarines. However in Ireland enforcement is so poor and governments continually prove themselves incompetent with infrastructure, the children's hospital, the luas that didn't join up etc that I would rather not see them built here .

There is talks of developing large scale solar farms in places like Libya and such and transporting the electricity across the med via a DC network and into the European AC inter connector grid, just as well the NIMBYists in Ireland couldn't stop eirgrid that time.

Gas will have be levied pricing it out of the market eventually and or subsidies for other hydrocarbon energy sources dropped altogether.

Markcheese

Nobody has managed to do micro-nuclear in a cost effective way . yet ..
Boris johnson made a big deal of a rolls royce project for them , if they work out could be worth while depending on the cost ..... But these things aren't even developed yet .. let alone commercialized ..
But I think most people would rather burn tyres on bonfires for energy rather than have nuclear any where near them ..
Gas is going to be with us for quiet some time ..
And ironically it'll wind that'll decide how long ,
If we can get most of our energy from wind ,( or renewsbles/ interconnectors ) then the gas plants will just be back up .. so won't get used much , so will be available for a long time ..
It still might be a good idea to invest in gas storage - as an energy security measure ..

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

It still might be a good idea to invest in gas storage - as an energy security measure ..

Wasn't there talk about doing that salt domes under Dublin bay ?

Markcheese

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wasn't there talk about doing that salt domes under Dublin bay ?

I'd never heard of that ,
I didn't even know there were salt domes under Dublin bay ..

gjim

Markcheese wrote: »

Nobody has managed to do micro-nuclear in a cost effective way . yet ..
Boris johnson made a big deal of a rolls royce project for them , if they work out could be worth while depending on the cost ..... But these things aren't even developed yet .. let alone commercialized ..

Yeah - micro-nuclear if that means the type of reactors used in US Navy subs and carriers only deliver max 150MW so you'd need 60 of them to meet daily peak demand in Ireland. This makes no sense and nobody in the world is proposing their use for grid-scale supply.

Boris' project is simply silly - the plan is to produce small but fairly conventional 550MW plants using as much factory prefabrication as possible at a cost of 2.5B euro each - this is the cost estimate which is likely an underestimate per unit AFTER they start mass producing them which means the first 3 or 4 will probably cost 5B+ and will probably take 15 years or so to deliver given they haven't even been designed. And in the end, each installation will require all the security/monitoring/engineering costs of a full plant.

Even if the cost comes down to 2.5B euro after say the first 5 are produced, 2.5B buys you a 2 or 3 GW of onshore wind which could be up and running in 6 months time rather than waiting 20 years for 500MW.

Like everything Boris presents you have to look beyond the fluff and bs - it's a grant of 180m to start research - which is mickey mouse money when it comes to nuclear - there's no actual commitment to actually produce one of these.

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

I'd never heard of that ,
I didn't even know there were salt domes under Dublin bay ..

Maybe not - under the Kish bank
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/plan-to-store-millions-of-tonnes-of-gas-off-dublin-bay-1.931940

Capt'n Midnight

gjim wrote: »

Boris' project is simply silly - the plan is to produce small but fairly conventional 550MW plants using as much factory prefabrication as possible at a cost of 2.5B euro each

The problem with nuclear is it one hand it can't load balance and on the other it isn't cheap. You can use it to reduce the carbon footprint if it replaces coal. But if you replace gas with coal you get the carbon reductions and you get flexibility. And gas is quick and easy compared to getting a nuclear plant built.

Most current generation reactors are about 1.2-1.5GW for economies of scale. Investing billions in yet another type of nuclear reactor that might be a little bit better isn't a huge step forward. It's more of a hostage to fortune.

Going to a higher temperature would a better use of the heat but the fuel and cladding limit your options. Coal has gotten more efficient because the fluid temperature can be increased. You could probably get even better numbers by gasifying the coal, but natural gas is cheaper and less hassle.

Markcheese

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Maybe not - under the Kish bank
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/plan-to-store-millions-of-tonnes-of-gas-off-dublin-bay-1.931940

Well that came to about as much as gas storage in the ballycotton field , that was petronas as well ..

Banana Republic 1

gjim wrote: »

Yeah - micro-nuclear if that means the type of reactors used in US Navy subs and carriers only deliver max 150MW so you'd need 60 of them to meet daily peak demand in Ireland. This makes no sense and nobody in the world is proposing their use for grid-scale supply.

Boris' project is simply silly - the plan is to produce small but fairly conventional 550MW plants using as much factory prefabrication as possible at a cost of 2.5B euro each - this is the cost estimate which is likely an underestimate per unit AFTER they start mass producing them which means the first 3 or 4 will probably cost 5B+ and will probably take 15 years or so to deliver given they haven't even been designed. And in the end, each installation will require all the security/monitoring/engineering costs of a full plant.

Even if the cost comes down to 2.5B euro after say the first 5 are produced, 2.5B buys you a 2 or 3 GW of onshore wind which could be up and running in 6 months time rather than waiting 20 years for 500MW.

Like everything Boris presents you have to look beyond the fluff and bs - it's a grant of 180m to start research - which is mickey mouse money when it comes to nuclear - there's no actual commitment to actually produce one of these.

I said could, the answer for Ireland is solar and nuclear via the inter connector with wind as an auxiliary.

Capt'n Midnight

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

nuclear via the inter connector

Except that most of the UK nuclear plants will be offline before their "replacements" come online. Half of them in the next five years. Only one existing plant Sizewell B will still be in use in ten years time.

And even that's not certain. Hunterston is shutting down early.


Even if you argue that UK is a nett importer of electricity the UK is rolling out wind so even second hand nuclear isn't as big a thing as it used to be. And the French are moving from a peak of 75% nuclear to 50%.

tom1ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Except that most of the UK nuclear plants will be offline before their "replacements" come online. Half of them in the next five years. Only one existing plant Sizewell B will still be in use in ten years time.

And even that's not certain. Hunterston is shutting down early.


Even if you argue that UK is a nett importer of electricity the UK is rolling out wind so even second hand nuclear isn't as big a thing as it used to be. And the French are moving from a peak of 75% nuclear to 50%.

When the Celtic interconnector is up and running we will have access to European excess electricity and the ability to sell our excess wind.

Banana Republic 1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Except that most of the UK nuclear plants will be offline before their "replacements" come online. Half of them in the next five years. Only one existing plant Sizewell B will still be in use in ten years time.

And even that's not certain. Hunterston is shutting down early.


Even if you argue that UK is a nett importer of electricity the UK is rolling out wind so even second hand nuclear isn't as big a thing as it used to be. And the French are moving from a peak of 75% nuclear to 50%.

Still a lot of power, you may not like it but that’s the way it’s going. Germany dropped nuclear in favour of burning lignite coal( brown coal) that the same as burning turf and is no way climate friendly or even friendly to anything living on the planet. Solar and nuclear with wind as auxiliary.

bob mcbob

tom1ie wrote: »

If we can store renewables like wind we don’t need nuclear.
All we have to do is solve the storage issue :-)

I think the best solution to the storage issue is to use the excess energy to produce hydrogen (via electrolysis). When needed the hydrogen can be fed into gas turbine power stations.

Sam Russell

bob mcbob wrote: »

I think the best solution to the storage issue is to use the excess energy to produce hydrogen (via electrolysis). When needed the hydrogen can be fed into gas turbine power stations.

It is not only hydrogen that is produced, but oxygen as well.

The first use of excess electricity is to use Turlough Hill pumped storage, then battery storage (if we have it installed), then smart meters to charge EVs, and after all of these, then perhaps hydrogen. EVs should feed the grid in times of shortage.

Smart meters with feed-in tariff and insulation are both methods of cutting CO2 and should be implemented before Hydrogen production.

tom1ie

bob mcbob wrote: »

I think the best solution to the storage issue is to use the excess energy to produce hydrogen (via electrolysis). When needed the hydrogen can be fed into gas turbine power stations.

This is exactly what I posted a few pages ago and then someone mentioned iron powder or something instead of hydrogen, which would sort out the whole explosive thing with hydrogen.
I like the idea of excess electricity producing hydrogen that can be used as a storage medium or to run hgv’s and busses etc.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is not only hydrogen that is produced, but oxygen as well.

The first use of excess electricity is to use Turlough Hill pumped storage, then battery storage (if we have it installed), then smart meters to charge EVs, and after all of these, then perhaps hydrogen. EVs should feed the grid in times of shortage.

Smart meters with feed-in tariff and insulation are both methods of cutting CO2 and should be implemented before Hydrogen production.

Turlough hill is a relatively small peaker plant and only provides 290 MW power albeit for 6 continuous hours.
Battery storage needs to be massively increased. Cost wise is that as efficient as having access to uk and European grids so we can import and export as we need? Genuine question I’m not sure.

Banana Republic 1

bk wrote: »

Brilliant to see movement on this. We will be able to use that lovely French Nuclear power.

It will basically mean we can completely shutdown the use of peat and coal and maybe even reduce gas use a bit. We will likely be able to hit more then 100% wind power with this *

* Not that we have 100% wind year round obviously, but that we have the capacity to generate more then 100% on windy days. The French Nukes will basically act as a backup when the wind isn't blowing and when it is, we can export our excess to them.

Interestingly, just like at the dashboard, coal is running at 0% today. Moneypoint has basically been offline the past few months. We should already be shutting it down and the peat stations too. Gas can already handle it. But this interconnector would reduce even the gas and all for more wind.

I agree with you except Ireland has to substantially upgrade it grid to facilitate wind power and also we are far behind when it comes to allowing people to sell there excess power back to the grid. For example there is a steadfast refusal by the ESB to allow biofarms to connect with the grid.

Banana Republic 1

tom1ie wrote: »

Turlough hill is a relatively small peaker plant and only provides 290 MW power albeit for 6 continuous hours.
Battery storage needs to be massively increased. Cost wise is that as efficient as having access to uk and European grids so we can import and export as we need? Genuine question I’m not sure.

The sub station style infrastructure needed for battery storage will come up against NIMBYism.

josip

Do countries explicitly or implicitly have a percentage of their peak energy consumption that they'd like to be able to generate domestically?
At a political level, security of supply in times of economic or other conflict, must be a consideration?
If Ireland's capability dropped below 100%, and without an interconnector to France, we would be completely at the mercy of the UK economically whenever there is a shortfall.
Which countries are ok with outsourcing a percentage of their required peak power generation to other countries?

Markcheese

tom1ie wrote: »

This is exactly what I posted a few pages ago and then someone mentioned iron powder or something instead of hydrogen, which would sort out the whole explosive thing with hydrogen.
I like the idea of excess electricity producing hydrogen that can be used as a storage medium or to run hgv’s and busses etc.

I'm not really up on the potential efficiency of a hydrogen cycle , bit hydrogen isn't that easy to store , and compressing is energy intensive in itself .. but I can see it's worth for hgvs buses ,and heavy machinary ..
Not so sure about hydrogen for grid level storage ,
The newer re-ox batteries though could be a big deal ,
Should be cheaper than lithium batteries , and longer lasting , with very little power loss over time ,
And more importantly more expandable .. want more storage capacity just build more storage tanks ..

What’s the story with tidal/wave energy?

Is it still a non runner? Is it likely to become a runner any time soon?

Presumably if they could sort that we’d have massive resources off the west coast

josip

Batrachotox wrote: »

What’s the story with tidal/wave energy?

Is it still a non runner? Is it likely to become a runner any time soon?

Presumably if they could sort that we’d have massive resources off the west coast

My understanding of wave is that the maintenance costs are high because of the submerged, saline environment.
Tidal needs a large basin to be viable and the environmental impacts of that are very hard to accept.

Sam Russell

josip wrote: »

My understanding of wave is that the maintenance costs are high because of the submerged, saline environment.
Tidal needs a large basin to be viable and the environmental impacts of that are very hard to accept.

There is a scheme in Strangford Lough - not sure how successful it is.

josip

josip wrote: »

Tidal needs a large basin to be viable and the environmental impacts of that are very hard to accept.

Tidal is extremely limited by the number of viable sites (tidal flow) suitable for the current tech

timmyntc

Batrachotox wrote: »

What’s the story with tidal/wave energy?

Is it still a non runner? Is it likely to become a runner any time soon?

Presumably if they could sort that we’d have massive resources off the west coast

For Tidal to work you need a "tidal race" to harness the energy of.
There are only so few around the country, and they only provide energy for a limited period each day (around low & high tides - depending on the site. Some races only work on 1 tide also)

Capt'n Midnight

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Still a lot of power, you may not like it but that’s the way it’s going. Germany dropped nuclear in favour of burning lignite coal( brown coal) that the same as burning turf and is no way climate friendly or even friendly to anything living on the planet. Solar and nuclear with wind as auxiliary.

Germany hasn't started any new coal power plants since phasing out nuclear.

Yes they completed they ones already under construction, but those replaced older plants with higher emissions.




Nuclear can't complement Solar. They'd compete for storage, for pylons to remote areas.

There's 6GW of despatchable plant in the country for a Peak Winter demand of 5GW.

But Summer night demand is only 2GW and two thirds of that can come from non-synchronous generators. So only a small fraction of the installed plant is guaranteed to have a market all the time. And that's already booked up by the kit providing spinning reserve and grid stability.

I just don't see how a nuclear plant here could even supply much of output to the grid 80% of the time, never mind sell it at the price it actually costs.

In France cheap electricity is used for heating. Here people are scared to leave the immersion on. So that isn't going to be an easy sell.

Banana Republic 1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Germany hasn't started any new coal power plants since phasing out nuclear.

Yes they completed they ones already under construction, but those replaced older plants with higher emissions.




Nuclear can't complement Solar. They'd compete for storage, for pylons to remote areas.

There's 6GW of despatchable plant in the country for a Peak Winter demand of 5GW.

But Summer night demand is only 2GW and two thirds of that can come from non-synchronous generators. So only a small fraction of the installed plant is guaranteed to have a market all the time. And that's already booked up by the kit providing spinning reserve and grid stability.

I just don't see how a nuclear plant here could even supply much of output to the grid 80% of the time, never mind sell it at the price it actually costs.

In France cheap electricity is used for heating. Here people are scared to leave the immersion on. So that isn't going to be an easy sell.

1. I’ve consistently said Ireland shouldn’t build nuclear plants because of a history of incompetence with capital infrastructure and regulatory enforcement.

2. Even the most up to date coal burning power plants are miserably inefficient. Germany stopped nuclear energy production after the Fukushima disaster. In actual fact only three people died as a direct result of the meltdown, more were killed because of a petrol terminal fire.

3. I don’t need to answer why people are scared to leave the immersion on because you have done it yourself. Ask yourself why is energy cheap in France.

Capt'n Midnight

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

1. I’ve consistently said Ireland shouldn’t build nuclear plants because of a history of incompetence with capital infrastructure and regulatory enforcement.

2. Even the most up to date coal burning power plants are miserably inefficiente

Already answered. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper. Efficiency improvements are promised. Don't hold your breath on delivery or expect the improvements to be worth the cost any time soon.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Compare the thermal efficiency improvements of nuclear plants to other steam turbine generators like those powered by coal or gas. Gas can hit 60% in combined cycle. Ultrasupercritical coal is at 47.5%. The latest nuclear plant is 37% at best. In theory it could be double this.

3. I don’t need to answer why people are scared to leave the immersion on because you have done it yourself. Ask yourself why is energy cheap in France.

In a word. Subsidies.

According to EDF, there are now 1.1 million households that qualify for the so-called “primary necessity tariff” that lowers bills by up to 60 percent.

Banana Republic 1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Already answered. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper. Efficiency improvements are promised. Don't hold your breath on delivery or expect the improvements to be worth the cost any time soon.





In a word. Subsidies.

According to EDF, there are now 1.1 million households that qualify for the so-called “primary necessity tariff” that lowers bills by up to 60 percent.

Ultrasupercritical coal you mean anthracite.

Come up with all the figures you want fossil fuel and coal is one form is toxic to the environment. Nuclear doesn’t put out CO2, end off

Wanderer78

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Already answered. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper. Efficiency improvements are promised. Don't hold your breath on delivery or expect the improvements to be worth the cost any time soon.

Apparently thorium reactors could potentially be far more efficient that their counterparts, but as far as I'm aware, an industrial reactor doesn't exist yet.