Energy infrastructure

RandomViewer · 30-12-2020 11:40pm

tom1ie wrote: »

This seems interesting:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/90483-hydrogen-storage-goes-solidstate
Website:

https://www.h2gopower.com/

Eu backed project which allows excess electricity generated from renewables to be converted to hydrogen via electrolysis and then stored in a solid state at 70 bar. (Pressure of a coffee machine!)
The solid Hydrogen is easily converted back to electricity via a coupled fuel cell.
This could be the future and seems to make a lot of sense.

Think that's what Naughten wanted the Offaly peat stations to be converted to but the government says they have to be demolished

AAAAAAAAA · 31-12-2020 12:12am

CatInABox wrote: »

ESB rapid-response gas plants will back up renewables

Would be more interesting if these small gas power plants were designed primarily for district heating rather than the power grid imo

bk · 31-12-2020 10:27am

RandomViewer wrote: »

Think that's what Naughten wanted the Offaly peat stations to be converted to but the government says they have to be demolished

I don’t think the government really decided this. I believe the original panning permission for these plants required them to be demolished once they ceased generating power using peat.

Also they are relatively poor location for storage facilities like this. The peat stations locations only made sense because they were close to the peat. It makes more sense to place storage and power generation plants near cities when possible.

tom1ie · 31-12-2020 12:04pm

bk wrote: »

I don’t think the government really decided this. I believe the original panning permission for these plants required them to be demolished once they ceased generating power using peat.

Also they are relatively poor location for storage facilities like this. The peat stations locations only made sense because they were close to the peat. It makes more sense to place storage and power generation plants near cities when possible.

Hmmmm not sure about this?
They have a ready made connection to the 110kv network so that’s a massive positive to keep them and convert to a storage facility.
The location doesn’t matter a while pole once they have a connection (see turlough hill).
Getting the OHL actually built takes years due to planning etc.

loyatemu · 31-12-2020 12:07pm

tom1ie wrote: »

This seems interesting:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/90483-hydrogen-storage-goes-solidstate
Website:

https://www.h2gopower.com/

Eu backed project which allows excess electricity generated from renewables to be converted to hydrogen via electrolysis and then stored in a solid state at 70 bar. (Pressure of a coffee machine!)
The solid Hydrogen is easily converted back to electricity via a coupled fuel cell.
This could be the future and seems to make a lot of sense.

I think this has already been discussed - it's an inefficient way of storing excess compared to batteries or pumped hydro (though the latter seems to be off the menu for environmental reasons).

tom1ie · 31-12-2020 12:19pm

loyatemu wrote: »

I think this has already been discussed - it's an inefficient way of storing excess compared to batteries or pumped hydro (though the latter seems to be off the menu for environmental reasons).

Don’t think we discussed it as a solid state storage, stored at 70 bar.
Looks like new technology.

Sam Russell · 31-12-2020 1:20pm

If it is to be used in a fuel cell, the oxygen would need to be stored as well, but that would be trivial in comparison to hydrogen.

tom1ie · 31-12-2020 3:22pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it is to be used in a fuel cell, the oxygen would need to be stored as well, but that would be trivial in comparison to hydrogen.

This article explains it better:
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-50841104

Sam Russell · 31-12-2020 3:49pm

tom1ie wrote: »

This article explains it better:
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-50841104

I find articles that measure weight in bags of sugar leave me unimpressed. Are these the bags that come with a cup of coffee or the ones in the supermarket, or the ones that are used by commercial jam makers? What pressure is 10,000 pounds force per square inch?

The explanation given is like one in the Ladybird books for very young children.

If you pass electricity through water, the water splits into O2 and H2. It follows, if the reverse can be achieved, then electricity is generated. Now the diagram was a bit too superficial to explain exactly how that is achieved, but I get the idea.

Now if the energy loss going the full circle [electricity] to [H2 plus O2] to [electricity] could be better than 80%, it would be an excellent solution. Better still, if the gases could be stored in a form suitable for aircraft, then better again.

I look forward to the first commercial implementation.

antoinolachtnai · 31-12-2020 4:47pm

The round trip efficiency isn’t necessarily that important if energy is cheap and plentiful enough at times of high production and expensive enough at times of high demand. If the northern seas become filled with floating wind farms you could see how this might happen.

What really starts to matter is the capital cost per kW and kWh.

Sam Russell · 31-12-2020 6:08pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The round trip efficiency isn’t necessarily that important if energy is cheap and plentiful enough at times of high production and expensive enough at times of high demand. If the northern seas become filled with floating wind farms you could see how this might happen.

What really starts to matter is the capital cost per kW and kWh.

Well, not really.

The efficiency matters because the nearer it is to 100%, the more it can be used backwards and forwards. For example, if it was 95%, it could be part of short term fill in, like battery solution, or Turlough Hill.

antoinolachtnai · 31-12-2020 6:19pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, not really.

The efficiency matters because the nearer it is to 100%, the more it can be used backwards and forwards. For example, if it was 95%, it could be part of short term fill in, like battery solution, or Turlough Hill.

No. Depends on the height of the peaks. Imagine if generated electricity is plentiful during the afternoon (say 1.5x the demand) and the price falls to ten or twenty euros per MWh. Generation is curtailed if the output cannot be stored.

Then in the evening the peak price goes up to 200 euros/MWh.

(This scenario will almost certainly happen if offshore wind keeps rolling out. We may well see the first signs of it as we put even a few hundred megawatts of PV on the grid.)

In this scenario it will now make sense to use a storage source with high round-trip losses if it is available. The barrier to building such a source will be the capital costs rather than the efficiency.

Sources like burning hydrogen will also help manage inertia on a grid with a lot of renewables.

Capt'n Midnight · 31-12-2020 7:23pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, not really.

The efficiency matters because the nearer it is to 100%, the more it can be used backwards and forwards. For example, if it was 95%, it could be part of short term fill in, like battery solution, or Turlough Hill.

Turlough Hill is more like 70% round cycle and that's when the turbines are operating at optimum flow rate. There's more than one turbine so they operate sort of on or off to get maximum efficiency. And as long as there is some storage Turlough hill can be used to reboot the whole system.

Efficiency isn't a biggie as long as there's a good difference between peak power and off-peak prices or there's a good price for backup. After that it's economics.

richie123 · 31-12-2020 7:33pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Turlough Hill is more like 70% round cycle and that's when the turbines are operating at optimum flow rate. There's more than one turbine so they operate sort of on or off to get maximum efficiency. And as long as there is some storage Turlough hill can be used to reboot the whole system.

Efficiency isn't a biggie as long as there's a good difference between peak power and off-peak prices or there's a good price for backup. After that it's economics.

Why will the government not look for more storage like turlough hill and silvermines ?
Keep the investment in this country.
Battery or hydogen storage means foreign companies gain.its our tax euros going out of the country.
Even at 70 %efficiency pumped hydro will last year's longer than any other system as turlough hill has proved already.

antoinolachtnai · 31-12-2020 8:30pm

richie123 wrote: »

Why will the government not look for more storage like turlough hill and silvermines ?
Keep the investment in this country.
Battery or hydogen storage means foreign companies gain.its our tax euros going out of the country.
Even at 70 %efficiency pumped hydro will last year's longer than any other system as turlough hill has proved already.

As I understand it we don’t have the elevation. As a result there are few suitable sites. There is a theoretically feasible site in Antrim I believe but the economics don’t stack up.

RandomViewer · 31-12-2020 11:01pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As I understand it we don’t have the elevation. As a result there are few suitable sites. There is a theoretically feasible site in Antrim I believe but the economics don’t stack up.

Theres a valley in the Glendowan mountains in Donegal, mostly forested at the moment , might fit the bill but Donegal county council kind of Fupped up a decade ago when they tried to force a landfill up there,

Capt'n Midnight · 01-01-2021 1:15am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As I understand it we don’t have the elevation. As a result there are few suitable sites. There is a theoretically feasible site in Antrim I believe but the economics don’t stack up.

Spirit Of Ireland had a few. Using the sea for the bottom reservoir.

CASE compressed air energy storage is another way.

To extract the energy you can use a lake to take the heat away when compressing air and provide heat when decompressing it. (Someone patented it but was done on ancient torpedoes so should be easy to break.)

Or you can use the compressed air as a feed to a gas turbine instead of a compressor which can use 40% of the normal output power.

Economics are the problem. Doubling installed renewable capacity increases the time when they undercut other energy supplies. So there are fewer peaks to pay for storage.

tom1ie · 01-01-2021 3:02am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, not really.

The efficiency matters because the nearer it is to 100%, the more it can be used backwards and forwards. For example, if it was 95%, it could be part of short term fill in, like battery solution, or Turlough Hill.

If the electricity is surplus (excess) from renewables, then efficiency doesn’t matter.
It’d be going to waste otherwise no?
This is especially true if we get to big percentages of renewables, as in plus 150%etc. Just throw the excess into electrolysis and store as solid state hydrogen, ready to be turned back to electricity when needed.
Anyway happy new year everyone!

Sam Russell · 01-01-2021 11:16am

tom1ie wrote: »

If the electricity is surplus (excess) from renewables, then efficiency doesn’t matter.
It’d be going to waste otherwise no?
This is especially true if we get to big percentages of renewables, as in plus 150%etc. Just throw the excess into electrolysis and store as solid state hydrogen, ready to be turned back to electricity when needed.
Anyway happy new year everyone!

Well, as the renewables get to be in excess of required power, then the economics of installing more renewable power installations moves away from profitable, the installations will stop. I doubt that we would ever get much beyond 100% installed base vs requirement, but maybe.

Then there is the installation cost of the electrolysis equipment. That requires metals such as platinum to be the catalyst so not cheap.

I think it is the wrong technology, but maybe it will work on a small scale.

tom1ie · 01-01-2021 12:18pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, as the renewables get to be in excess of required power, then the economics of installing more renewable power installations moves away from profitable, the installations will stop. I doubt that we would ever get much beyond 100% installed base vs requirement, but maybe.

Then there is the installation cost of the electrolysis equipment. That requires metals such as platinum to be the catalyst so not cheap.

I think it is the wrong technology, but maybe it will work on a small scale.

We should be aiming for much more than 100% renewables as we can sell the excess via interconnectors and store the excess via the likes of this new hydrogen technology.

celtic_oz · 01-01-2021 12:42pm

Seems to be some excitement re Moltex nuclear

pilot being built in Canada apparently

MSR which can use up older nuclear waste, and provide a heat battery for renewables

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju59gcdmdvI

Markcheese · 01-01-2021 12:48pm

If the new re-ox flow batteries work out ( an if ) they could be a godsend , if you want more storage capacity you build more storage tanks ... The tech bit in between the 2 set of tanks ( the bit that does the reduction and oxygenation and either uses or produces electricity ) stays the same , as does the output ..
And they're good for long term storage ... Plus they won't need lithium ..

Markcheese · 01-01-2021 12:54pm

Isn't one of the problems with using the sea as a bottom battery that youre dealing with salt water ?
And completely changing the environment of the new upper reservoirs ... They then become upland sea loughs , but with an extreme and irregular tide ..
That may not be a deal breaker but it is a factor..

Markcheese · 01-01-2021 1:01pm

celtic_oz wrote: »

Seems to be some excitement re Moltex nuclear

pilot being built in Canada apparently

MSR which can use up older nuclear waste, and provide a heat battery for renewables

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju59gcdmdvI

Wow , that'd pretty amazing...
Is everything as rosy as the promo video suggests ?

celtic_oz · 01-01-2021 1:16pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Wow , that'd pretty amazing...
Is everything as rosy as the promo video suggests ?

MSR's have inherent safety advantages, the technology is proven, they built one in the 60's and it ran for 4 years

The issue has been dealing with the caustic nature of the salts.

whether Moltex has the solution to this is unknown

LFTR in 5 mins :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

Sam Russell · 01-01-2021 1:44pm

celtic_oz wrote: »

MSR's have inherent safety advantages, the technology is proven, they built one in the 60's and it ran for 4 years

The issue has been dealing with the caustic nature of the salts.

whether Moltex has the solution to this is unknown

LFTR in 5 mins :

I think the last paragraph of the Wiki article is quite sobering.

After shutdown, the salt was believed to be in long-term safe storage. At low temperatures, radiolysis can free fluorine from the salt. As a countermeasure, the salt was annually reheated to about 302 °F (150 °C) until 1989.[20] But beginning in the mid-1980s, there was concern that radioactivity was migrating through the system.[by whom?] Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas – the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine.[citation needed] The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million, with decommissioning expected to be completed in 2009.[21] Removal of uranium from the salt was finally complete in March 2008, however still leaving the salt with the fission products in the tanks.[22]

Much of the high cost was caused by the unpleasant surprise of fluorine and uranium hexafluoride evolution from cold fuel salt in storage that ORNL did not defuel and store correctly, but this has now been taken into consideration in MSR design.[23]

A potential decommissioning process has been described;[24] uranium is to be removed from the fuel as the hexafluoride by adding excess fluorine, and plutonium as the plutonium dioxide by adding sodium carbonate.

01-01-2021 1:53pm

celtic_oz wrote: »

Seems to be some excitement re Moltex nuclear

pilot being built in Canada apparently

MSR which can use up older nuclear waste, and provide a heat battery for renewables

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju59gcdmdvI

That SSR reactor sounds amazeballs in theory. Tried doing more research into it. Its telling that the bulk of the info available is all from one source. It's like a kickstarter idea.

As for it being the solution to waste, good luck trying to transport it from anywhere to any of these plants. Communities will block roads before allowing this stuff through their towns. It's one of the main reasons why the majority of the waste stockpile is stored at the plants themselves.

celtic_oz · 01-01-2021 2:04pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the last paragraph of the Wiki article is quite sobering.

not really .. it was experimental 50 years ago .. bold the other text and it's trivial

After shutdown, the salt was believed to be in long-term safe storage. At low temperatures, radiolysis can free fluorine from the salt. As a countermeasure, the salt was annually reheated to about 302 °F (150 °C) until 1989.[20] But beginning in the mid-1980s, there was concern that radioactivity was migrating through the system.[by whom?] Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas – the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine.[citation needed] The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million, with decommissioning expected to be completed in 2009.[21] Removal of uranium from the salt was finally complete in March 2008, however still leaving the salt with the fission products in the tanks.[22]

Much of the high cost was caused by the unpleasant surprise of fluorine and uranium hexafluoride evolution from cold fuel salt in storage that ORNL did not defuel and store correctly, but this has now been taken into consideration in MSR design.[23]

A potential decommissioning process has been described;[24] uranium is to be removed from the fuel as the hexafluoride by adding excess fluorine, and plutonium as the plutonium dioxide by adding sodium carbonate.

celtic_oz · 01-01-2021 2:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That SSR reactor sounds amazeballs in theory. Tried doing more research into it. Its telling that the bulk of the info available is all from one source. It's like a kickstarter idea.

As for it being the solution to waste, good luck trying to transport it from anywhere to any of these plants. Communities will block roads before allowing this stuff through their towns. It's one of the main reasons why the majority of the waste stockpile is stored at the plants themselves.

so trivial to build a small new plant burning up the old waste at the old plant site, where all the power grid is connected.

Sam Russell · 01-01-2021 2:12pm

celtic_oz wrote: »

not really .. it was experimental 50 years ago .. bold the other text and it's trivial

And the technology went to sleep for 50 years. Hmmmmm.

Energy infrastructure

Comments