plodder wrote: » One lived quite a long way away from it. Wicklow, if I'm not mistaken..
Greaney wrote: » You are mistaken, the 'poxy twits' that you are giving out about live locally.
The bank is seeking judgment against three brothers over money given to them to buy an 80-acre site in Wicklow where it was proposed to develop a data centre
Greaney wrote: » Yes, there were many who objected, but your original rant was about the current two who are 'holding everything up', and they are local.......
gctest50 wrote: » One of them is a yank, only here a few days as the saying goes He moved here " for love reasons " or smth
dubhthach wrote: » Interesting that they have integrated battery storage into each turbine in this farm, though personally I imagine it would be more efficient to have the turbines feeding into large battery storage unit such as the ones Tesla won contracts for in California:
bk wrote: » Electricity usage and thus generation has fallen quiet a bit over the last few years, that is why the ESB and others have been shutting a number of power plants over the last few years.
bk wrote: » Apple have already reached 100% renewable energy use at all their offices and data centers. This new one would have been no different.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Yet the project was nonetheless approved, which could be seen as problematic.
plodder wrote: » I never used that term.
SeanW wrote: » This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. The poxy twits who bogged this down in objections won. The billion euro investment in the West? Gone. Hundreds of jobs - outside main cities where they are desperately needed? Gone. They wanted to stick a knife in the backs of rural people who would have benefited and they succeeded. What the hell are they still suing for?
plodder wrote: » I would guess that battery storage built into wind turbines is more for grid stability than anything else. Traditional fossil fueled generators are large heavy machines. So, they have a lot of inertia and can react well to instantaneous changes in power demand. Adding batteries to wind turbines emulates the same behaviour. The bottom line is the batteries only provide power at the level of seconds and minutes, rather than hours or days.
GE Power Services business, together with Southern California Edison (SCE), in collaboration with Wellhead Power Solutions, LLC, recently installed the world’s first battery storage and gas turbine hybrid. The goal: to quell concerns around changing regulations and grid requirements following California’s Aliso Canyon energy emergency. The project will reinforce California’s grid, resulting in increased renewable energy and fuel savings. SCE, a utility that provides more than 15 million people with power, has won six awards for the project, including two for innovation, one for clean air, and even one from Power Engineering for Best Overall Project. “GE’s new LM6000 Hybrid EGT product fits well with SCE's objective of providing cost–effective, innovative solutions that enhance grid reliability, flexibility, and fast response to our customers,” said Phil Herrington, vice president of Generation for SCE. As part of the project, GE installed a 10 MW battery energy storage system in the LM6000 Hybrid EGT followed by gas turbine controls upgrades to integrate the two systems. SCE estimates that the systems will use 2 million fewer gallons of water to operate, as well as reduce emissions by 60%. Additionally, the Hybrid EGT’s fast-start capabilities mean that it can produce spinning reserve power, making it even more valuable for SCE. Vibhu Kaushik, director of grid technology and modernization at SCE remarked “Renewable and energy storage provide the perfect combination where you can harness renewable energy and match the supply to how the demand is shaped on the grid.”
plodder wrote: » A few fluffy statements about renewables aren't sufficient grounds to refuse an important project like that. Eirgrid in particular didn't seem to have major concerns.
Greaney wrote: » Ye were kinda working as a tag team there
plodder wrote: » No we weren't. But please be less sloppy when replying to people's posts.
ezstreet5 wrote: » What isn't fluffy is the 40% RES-E target that Ireland must meet by 2020. I doubt the EU considers this commitment to be "soft law," where if Ireland is a little short, or a little late, there will be no consequence. There are consequences built right into the Renewable Energy Directive, called "cooperation mechanisms," under which Ireland will need to purchase credit from Member States that have exceeded their targets, such as Denmark (and it isn't cheap). If Ireland fails to "cooperate," the EU has made it clear that infringement penalties will be assessed. So either Apple provides real, additional renewable energy to the grid to offset their new load, or the compliance cost will shift to the State, its taxpayers, and electricity rate payers. Eirgrid have routinely distanced themselves from this issue with quotes such as: ‘We are not responsible for the development of energy policy. Neither do we own, construct, or operate any form of generation, including wind farms. As per our statutory and license obligations, we are required to plan and develop the transmission system to meet reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity. In addition, we are required to offer terms and enter into agreements for connection to and use of the transmission system with all those using and seeking to use the transmission system. This includes, large industrial customers, wind farms and data centres, irrespective of whether they are Irish or foreign owned.' (Grid Development Strategy - Response to Stakeholder Feedback, Section 3.3). It is the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (formerly CER) that need to take a closer look at this issue.
bk wrote: » Oh god :rolleyes: As I mentioned you do constantly upgrade the servers within the data center, that is where Moores Law comes in, new server with faster CPU's which can do more units of work faster and at a lower energy use (per unit of work). Data centers aren't going anywhere.
plodder wrote: » Right, but what they were applying for was only 30MW for phase 1. There was nothing to stop the state (other than the project being cancelled of course ) from putting appropriate policies in place before future phases would be approved.
4ensic15 wrote: » Data centres are being cited in Ireland for climatic reasons. They need less heating or cooling in Ireland than in other locations. When the technology advances the climatic reasons will no longer be relevant. I recall when 1 gigabyte needed a machine the size of a washing machine in an air-conditioned room. In a few years, the current data centres will fit in a space the size of a lunch box and won't need air conditioning. There will be no reason to have them in Ireland. The ones that are here will be abandoned.
4ensic15 wrote: » Moore's law.
Or even better, instead of waiting for some vague inter-agency government policy on data centres to develop and be applied, why doesn't the competent authority simply require project-specific mitigation measures to be applied as a condition of approval for Phase 1 of the development? Surely this can be done under the authority of the EIA Directive, and specifically, Annex IV(7) which requires "a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent, reduce and wherever, if possible offset any identified significant adverse effects on the environment...."
SeanW wrote: » You do realise that it is not Apple's fault that Ireland burns fossil fuel for electricity, right? You also realise that renewables are not a solution because (at least in the case of wind and solar) they are literally as reliable as the weather, so any claim of "100%" renewable is not true, except in Iceland or Norway or Ontario Canada. Even at that, it is possible to have a near 100% non-fossil, low CO2 power grid anywhere on Earth as they have in France, Sweden and Switzerland, even if renewables are not going to power everything. Apple does not decide Ireland's energy policies. We do.
For the Athenry project, the An Bord Pleanala Inspector's Report says at para. 12.6.7: "On balance I would agree with the basis of the argument put forward by the appellants and observers regarding the claims of 100 percent renewable power supply. [...] In my opinion the best assumption which can be made is that power supply to the development will be from the grid average power generation sources." Yet the project was nonetheless approved, which could be seen as problematic. (It may be helpful to read that entire section of the Inspector's Report for full context).
dubhthach wrote: » "640 K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates Of course given that we are in infrastructure forum the more apt comparison is that road traffic expand to fill and then exceed capacity every time you increase the carrying capacity on a route. (mar shampla: M50 upgrade)
JohnC. wrote: » More and more of what a data centre provides will also be needed. Things have miniaturised quite a bit and become a lot more powerful since data centres started, yet there's more and more being built. And if you think a data centre is going under a desk, you may be mistaken in what a data centre is for.
SeanW wrote: » I suspect Apple knows a good deal more about this than you, which is why they were prepared to spend nearly a billion euros investing in a data centre in Athenry. But hey, our loss was Denmark's gain. .
